# Measuring... heard talk of a new proposal...



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 12, 2010)

So I have heard there is a propsal in set to be discussed in Nov.. (AMHR) for measuring at the withers instead of the last mane hairs.

My understanding is that it would start in 2011- leaving all previous measurements as they stand with the last mane hairs and moving forward having them done at the withers.

Any thoughts? I know this passed and was reversed in AMHA but I have always thought horses should be measured like any other equine at the withers. Yes some horses would then be to large and I am not sure what that would mean for them or if they would simply measure out?

But why we measure them somewhere no other breed does just so they appear smaller has never made much sense to me or seemed the right thing to do.

Thoughts-opinions?


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Jul 12, 2010)

I hadn't heard of it, but I would like it.

Especially since I've been known to sneeze while clipping and making my horse grow taller!


----------



## lildrummer (Jul 12, 2010)

Love your answer Field of Dreams. LOL

lildrummer


----------



## Crabby-Chicken (Jul 12, 2010)

I think it they want to be considered horses, they should be measured as other breeds. At the wither. Have always felt this. And add an inch or two. It is a realistic way to measure. I hope it is true Lisa!


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 12, 2010)

I like the proposal but I think that the height limits would have to be raised to adjust for the new measurements. Instead of 34 and under and 38 and under, raise it to 35 and under and 39 and under. BUT, just because we have them measure on the withers doesn't mean we'll solve the measurement problems. We measure shetlands on the withers and there is still 1-2" difference on measurements between stewards at times. The problem will never be solved but by measuring on the withers we'll be in line with every other horse association.


----------



## Miniv (Jul 12, 2010)

I agree with both Crabby Chicken and Txminipinto.........

Do the withers' height but adjust the legal height accordingly.


----------



## Sandee (Jul 12, 2010)

I think the biggest problem with measuring at the withers for many people - is finding them. Some of these little guys do not have that promonent bone. I know that my stallion has nearly flat but long withers --at least that's what I'm told by the chiropractors.

Just as some of the stewards have problems finding the "last mane hair" finding those withers will not be any easier.


----------



## Belinda (Jul 12, 2010)

Lisa is right there is a proposal in for this.. 



 I have always been for measuring at the Wither like we do all the other breeds. So I hope we can have a positive chat here about the pro's and con's !! As it is a fact ALL HORSES BIG OR SMALL HAVE WITHERS ! 








 

 I however do NOT agree with raising the heights. That is why I agree with just going forward , let all horses that are already Reg. continue being measured at the last hair of the mane, and go forward in 2011 with measuring at the wither, Show horses usually only are shown 3 or 4 years and then retire to breeding .. With the exception of Performance horses and geldings, and for a few years I guess we would have two different ways of measuring , but really that is the only way I can see this working , as you should always go Forward , NEVER backward , so with that said we can not measure horses already reg. by a different means...

 

 I will have to disagree with Cairn on the fact that there is a problem with height being that much different when measured at the withers. My ponies measured at the wither have never been more than a 1/4" off from one steward to the next.. And that my friends could be the surface where they are measuring even up to a 1/2" . But the last hair of the mane I have had some from one show to the next be as different as over a 1" !!! 



 So I truly believe we have to do something .. JMHO...


----------



## wildoak (Jul 12, 2010)

> Show horses usually only are shown 3 or 4 years and then retire to breeding .. With the exception of Performance horses and geldings,


That's a pretty big exception - and is my only objection to changing to a withers based measurement. We have so many good performance horses now, and have worked to promote geldings & performance to stimulate interest in the breed, that I'd hate to suddenly see many of them disqualified. Driving horses may be shown into their teens, what happens to the taller ones in that instance? I don't think they are any less "miniatures" if we suddenly change the standards.

Jan


----------



## Belinda (Jul 12, 2010)

wildoak said:


> That's a pretty big exception - and is my only objection to changing to a withers based measurement. We have so many good performance horses now, and have worked to promote geldings & performance to stimulate interest in the breed, that I'd hate to suddenly see many of them disqualified. Driving horses may be shown into their teens, what happens to the taller ones in that instance? I don't think they are any less "miniatures" if we suddenly change the standards.
> 
> Jan


Jan , no one is going to get Disqualified !! That is why it said starting with horses reg.in 2011 , anything reg. before will be still measured at the last hair of the mane for as long as they are shown even if is 20 years. LOL !!


----------



## Reble (Jul 12, 2010)

I just have one thing to ask?

Will that not make the over ones at the last hair, not as desirable to buy?

My horses are all under 32.00" for breeding.

I will be fine.


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (Jul 12, 2010)

I'm all for measuring at the withers and also think the "going forward" thing is fine, but I do believe you would have to raise the height limits for those measured at the withers as otherwise a horse the exact same height as one currently legal would now be "too big." We measured some 30+ minis of all sizes at the Happ's CDE in 2008 and most of them came up at least an inch taller in the withers than their regular breed show measurements. My 33.5" gelding for instance was 35" or thereabouts if I recall correctly. He didn't suddenly get any larger, but he's got prominent withers and he's going to measure taller at the wither than the last mane hair. And so would any horse his size who happened to be born after 2011 and is being measured to the new standard. Do we really want to downsize our breed by whole inches accidentally?

Leia


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 12, 2010)

I like the idea, as my goal is to breed the "smallest correctly proportioned horse possible". I realize that is not the goal of many people, and therefore many will not like it. I think it is a step in the right direction to portray our horses accurately. I also realize that there will be many things that will come up and will need to be discussed and there will be both pros and cons.

I hope everyone will be respectful of each others ideas and look at it open minded.


----------



## Margo_C-T (Jul 12, 2010)

I would be 1000% in favor of changing measurement to the HIGHEST POINT/TOP OF the withers, as it is done w/ virtually ALL the rest of the equine world. The withers are a BONY PROMINENCE(yes, some are more prominent than others, but still, locating their highest point must always be easier and more definate than locating the 'last hair' of the main...run your hand closely and firmly over the withers, note that whether they have a prominent wither or a 'mutton' wither, they definitely HAVE a wither that can be easily felt, because there is really only a skin covering over the TOP of that portion of the vertebral column.

I have no problem with raising the height standard(to ultimately ensure that future horses are not IN ACTUALITY, taller horses---if this ISN'T done, then at some time in future, the 'officially registered' miniature horse WILL be a slightly taller animal. This doesn't really bother me; I have come to believe it simply shouldn't be an issue--it is just not that significant a difference, IMO.The height limits were subjectively chosen to begin with. I do STRONGLY believe that 'grandfathering in' ALL measured under the now-existing specifications for as long as every such horse shall live...as described by Belinda...would be the only fair way. What would NOT be fair would be to change the measurement site so as to immediately DISQUALIFY many currently-legal-height horses---and I don't believe there would be ANY support for doing it that way!

Of COURSE,for this to actually make things better all around, the PRIMARY requirement would be close adherence to the rules and requirements of honest and proper measurement.

(And,for those who may not be familiar with what happened... I have to add that the AMHA did NOT 'do this', then reject it! What was done was a cockamamy(MY description, and I'm stickin' to it!)notion to measure at the 'bottom' of the withers...a completely UNDEFINABLE, arbitrary 'location' on the horse. IMHO, when the many potential problems were made clear, actual logic prevailed, and the action was rescinded.Measurement at the TOP/HIGHEST point of the withers was not part of what occurred.)

Margo


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 12, 2010)

I'm not at all oposed by measuring at the withers. My question would be is 2011 a little too soon to start a change like this, I think 2012 would give people a better heads up, especially mares are bred right what if they foaled out kids too tall for this new measuring system. Alot of those horses will be the shetlands, yes I'm actually speaking up for the mini shetlands lol. Another thing I agree with some is I don't think we should raise the height limits.

This will defintelly be a interesting proposal, and hopefully will be going to Convention this year.

The thing that AMHA was trying to do and was passed was measure at the BASE behind the withers, to find this magical notch. It didn't go over so well.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 12, 2010)

I have no problem with the measurement point being moved to the top of the wither. IMO that's where it should have been right from the start.

I do see problems with the height limit being left at 38" when the measuring is done at the top of the withers. Why? Because right now there are horses that measure 38" at the last mane hair. Measure those horses at the top of the wither and a good many of them (particularly the Shetlands) are going to measure 39" or taller. Some of the non-ASPC Minis may have lower withers and the height difference isn't that much. So, further down the road, it's very possible that we're going to see driving classes that have entries that are measured in to the top of the withers as well as entries that are measured in at the last mane hair. Those that are 38" at the last mane hair are likely taller....and will look taller...than those that measure 38" at the top of the wither. Those that are showing the 38" at the top of the wither ones will be complaining big time about how unfair it is that they have to compete against horses that are "too tall" because of the different measuring method. And some people that are watching the classes will be making complaints about how much taller some horses are...because many of those won't know about the two different ways of measuring.

Some will be happy for sure, because this rule change will keep a larger number of ASPC ponies out of the AMHR registry, just because so many ponies do have higher withers with mane that ends well down the wither--many that would measure in now will be too tall once they have to make 38" or less at the top of the wither.

It matters not to me--for many reasons I have moved from showing Minis to showing ponies--so I care little about what they do when it comes to measuring Minis.


----------



## Yaddax3 (Jul 12, 2010)

If the goal to to keep 34 inches as the benchmark for Unders and to keep 38 inches for Overs, Belinda may have hit on the best solution. You would have to grandfather in all minis measured under the current format.

There are a few problems, I believe.

One problem: The minis measured at the withers starting in 2011 could be at a competitive disadvantage in a driving class against a mini that measures 38 inches at the last hair of the mane but would be 40-plus inches at the withers. That competitive disadvantage also could come into play in Halter and other classes.

Another problem: Breeding programs could be destroyed. Several well-known breeders produce high-quality ASPC-AMHR double registered ponies/minis that breed to be in that 37-38 inch range. They built their programs based on the current rules. What happens to them?

Perhaps raising the height limits for Under and Over horses should be a strong option.


----------



## ruffian (Jul 12, 2010)

I would suggest a survey of horses at Nationals to get an average of how much difference there is between the withers and last hair. A strictly voluntary measurement, where the horse's NAME would NOT be recorded, simply 2 measurements that are taken AFTER the official measurement has been completed. That way we would have a strong mathematical basis for deciding to not change the current sizes, or by how much to change them. To simply "guestimate" what to change them to is not scientific, and horses are going to have different wither definiation.

I will have some horses at Nationals, and would absolutely have them included in such a study. I think this measuring at the withers is a method who's time has come. I've measured hundreds of horses, and finding the withers is certainly easier than the last hair!

I would fully support such a program, if it is done with scientific background, and not someone's best guess.


----------



## Sandee (Jul 12, 2010)

Minimor said:


> I have no problem with the measurement point being moved to the top of the wither. IMO that's where it should have been right from the start.
> 
> I do see problems with the height limit being left at 38" when the measuring is done at the top of the withers. Why? Because right now there are horses that measure 38" at the last mane hair. Measure those horses at the top of the wither and a good many of them (particularly the Shetlands) are going to measure 39" or taller. Some of the non-ASPC Minis may have lower withers and the height difference isn't that much. So, further down the road, it's very possible that we're going to see driving classes that have entries that are measured in to the top of the withers as well as entries that are measured in at the last mane hair. Those that are 38" at the last mane hair are likely taller....and will look taller...than those that measure 38" at the top of the wither. Those that are showing the 38" at the top of the wither ones will be complaining big time about how unfair it is that they have to compete against horses that are "too tall" because of the different measuring method. And some people that are watching the classes will be making complaints about how much taller some horses are...because many of those won't know about the two different ways of measuring.
> 
> ...


YEP!!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 12, 2010)

I think Ruffian's suggestion is a very good idea. What a great experiment.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 12, 2010)

Well I do have mixed feelings, but all and all, I'd be for it!






As a BREED, this is just one important step closer, IMO! And I am very glad to see it! I hope this does pass, and that it works well.





I do see it hurting the Modern Miniature Pony, as most are very high withered, but since most people here don't care or like these extreme tiny horses, I don't see much of a fuss being said about it here. I do feel that that is too bad, but to each their own.

I will find it interesting, the size difference on horses. I will go out and measure four tomorrow, and see what I get for heights on withers vs. mane. I have a feeling my under mare might measure over, and my over gelding under, just because I know how different their conformation is.

And I too would like to see the height, maybe if it's only the "B" horses, raised to 39 or even 40".... But I highly doubt that that will happen.

I too, agree with Ruffian's idea!





Wooo AMHR!


----------



## Minimor (Jul 13, 2010)

> I do see it hurting the Modern Miniature Pony, as most are very high withered, but since most people here don't care or like these extreme tiny horses, I don't see much of a fuss being said about it here.


 Desiree, do you mean specifically the Modern shetlands, or just "modern type" as in any Shetland? Because it isn't just the Modern Shetlands that have high withers. I know a few Arenosas, who are Classic ponies through and through (not to mention they are also AMHR and come from several generations of AMHR registered ponies), that have very prominent withers, and they have 2" difference in height between last mane hair and top of withers. Some that measure 38" as AMHR measure 40" or 40.25" when they are measured as a pony...so anyone that is breeding those horses and getting foals of a similar height is going to be out of luck starting in 2011 if this rule change goes through as it is. Some of these horses are owned by some very prominent breeders--while I don't have that particular breeding in my ponies, I think it will be kind of a shame to see some of those horses disappear from AMHR in terms of breeding. And I do feel bad for those breeders who may suddenly and unexpectedly find themselves with some unregistrable foals--foals they might not have bred for in some cases had they known that the height limit was going to drop so drastically in 2011.


----------



## Mominis (Jul 13, 2010)

Wouldn't this be detrimental to the market for the horses that are currently under 30", but would not be under the proposed rule? The 30" horses seem to have a very strong market, good saleability, and some of the higher prices in the breeds. How would this really effect the breeders and the market as a whole?


----------



## 3EagleFarm (Jul 13, 2010)

I have very mixed feelings about it.

It's shame that the registry started out measuring at the last hair of the mane and not at the withers than all the other horses. But now to change it!? It doesn't feel right to me. And what this must be for a mess at shows to have two diffenrent measurements.

I also feel for the for the AMHR/ASPC breeders.

If they would raise the height too, this would sound much more fair to me. Or if they would only raise the "B" horses to 39 or 40", like midnight star stables quoted, tis sounds like a GREAT idea!


----------



## Lisa Strass (Jul 13, 2010)

Pros: Our horses would be measured like all equine including the ASPC registry. This is a benefit regarding our overseas markets as well.

Cons: The biggest negative I see is the confusion of how "grandfathered" horses are measured and the size differences that will be present in the show ring for the next 20 years.

However, I am NOT in favor of raising the height limits. Not all, but most of the current 37-38" minis are double-registered ASPC. This means that they can still show in the appropriate ASPC division. Currently in ASPC there are Over and Under Divisions similar to AMHR. Maybe ASPC could divide it's Under division into 40" and Under, and 40-42"?

I'm not sure what the answer is. I like the idea of measuring at the withers, but I don't like the grandfathering or raising the height limit clauses. Unfortunately, that leaves me personally with some potentially big changes to my program!


----------



## JennyB (Jul 13, 2010)

I have to agree with Lisa S. 

 

I think you will not succeed in helping the problems we already have. We will just be adding another set of problems. Seems when we CAN'T fix the problems we DO have with measuring correctly to satisfy everyone, we go back to the drawing board after all this time. 





 

Just keep on keepin on with what we already have and quit trying to FIX THINGS in mid-stream..seems the easy way out to may to me. Might hurt a lot of Miniatures and their owners in the long run.

 

Mel says, well you can just throw out all the heights and show them as the ponies they are 





 

Jenny and Mel


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 13, 2010)

No more height divisons, Lisa! LOL!



Lisa Strass said:


> Pros: Our horses would be measured like all equine including the ASPC registry. This is a benefit regarding our overseas markets as well.
> 
> Cons: The biggest negative I see is the confusion of how "grandfathered" horses are measured and the size differences that will be present in the show ring for the next 20 years.
> 
> ...


----------



## RhineStone (Jul 13, 2010)

When American Driving Society added the Very Small Equine division, they knew that the "minis" had to be measured at the withers, the same as any other horse shown at ADS events, so they made the VSE division 39" and under to accomodate the minis' 38" at the last hairs of the mane.

To me, this only makes sense to measure them like every other horse and account for the height discrepancy between the withers and last hair. Maybe this will give the rest of the horse world one less thing to poo-poo minis about.


----------



## Lisa Strass (Jul 13, 2010)

txminipinto said:


> No more height divisons, Lisa! LOL!


Yeah, I know. I had to kick myself for even thinking about the addition of more classes.



LOL!


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (Jul 13, 2010)

ruffian said:


> I would suggest a survey of horses at Nationals to get an average of how much difference there is between the withers and last hair. ... That way we would have a strong mathematical basis for deciding to not change the current sizes, or by how much to change them. To simply "guestimate" what to change them to is not scientific, and horses are going to have different wither definiation.


Ditto Ruffian! I think doing the study at Nationals is a great idea. Can't get more miniature horses in one place than that....

Leia


----------



## Magic (Jul 13, 2010)

RhineStone said:


> When American Driving Society added the Very Small Equine division, they knew that the "minis" had to be measured at the withers, the same as any other horse shown at ADS events, so they made the VSE division 39" and under to accomodate the minis' 38" at the last hairs of the mane.




This would make the most sense, IMO. Raising the height limit if the measuring change were implemented would lessen the problems of "grandfathered-in" horses and younger horses showing and being measured differently, and of the possible peril of breeding programs being damaged or even destroyed by at-the-limit heights suddenly being over.

I would support the measuring change *if* the height limit were adjusted.


----------



## alphahorses (Jul 13, 2010)

Yaddax3 said:


> There are a few problems, I believe.
> 
> One problem: The minis measured at the withers starting in 2011 could be at a competitive disadvantage in a driving class against a mini that measures 38 inches at the last hair of the mane but would be 40-plus inches at the withers. That competitive disadvantage also could come into play in Halter and other classes.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything Yaddax3 said here.

I would like to see them measured at the withers, but I think it will make it unnecessarily complicated for stewards and show managers if you have some horses measured at the withers and others "grandfathered" in to measure at the last hair. Why would it be so bad to have miniature horses that are 39" or even 40" at the withers? Why are we so attached to limiting them to 38"?

By the way, I had a pony measure as much as 1.5" different from one steward to the other last year. So yes, there can be a big difference in measurements. I watched the steward who measured her 1.5" higher than the rest had, and the stick was no where near level.



RhineStone said:


> Maybe this will give the rest of the horse world one less thing to poo-poo minis about.


Yes, big horse people often think minis are a joke - and measuring them like dogs (speaking figuratively here) instead of horses doesn't help our case.


----------



## Sandee (Jul 13, 2010)

alphahorses said:


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


Ditto. I had a horse gain over an 1" in a month between an AMHA show and an AMHR show.


----------



## alphahorses (Jul 13, 2010)

Hum... could have interesting implications for all those people out there with height guarantees on horses they sold.



ruffian said:


> I would suggest a survey of horses at Nationals to get an average of how much difference there is between the withers and last hair.


Great idea.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 13, 2010)

Lisa Strass said:


> I'm not sure what the answer is. I like the idea of measuring at the withers, but I don't like the grandfathering or raising the height limit clauses. Unfortunately, that leaves me personally with some potentially big changes to my program!


I feel the exact same way


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (Jul 13, 2010)

Sandee said:


> Ditto. I had a horse gain over an 1" in a month between an AMHA show and an AMHR show.


I can beat that.



My very first AMHA show ever my stud colt was whirling and fussing during measurement and they didn't even bother resetting the stick from the last horse. The bored steward in question simply touched the stick to his back and pronounced him 31" without it ever hitting the floor or the horse ever once standing still. I found this especially interesting considering he is taller in the rump than my mature 33.5" gelding!

Thankfully for my peace of mind regarding AMHA the next A show I entered he and my other gelding both measured 33" which I feel is right on the money. Two weeks later at an R show they were 33" for the colt and 33.5" for the gelding which again is fairly accurate as the gelding is higher in the withers than the colt.

Still, funny how he "grew" two inches in two months.



And that's not even using the withers!

Leia


----------



## kaykay (Jul 13, 2010)

> By the way, I had a pony measure as much as 1.5" different from one steward to the other last year. So yes, there can be a big difference in measurements. I watched the steward who measured her 1.5" higher than the rest had, and the stick was no where near level.


I agree. Last year I showed at a show about 10 days from Congress. At Congress the pony measured almost 2" taller then it measured at the last show. The steward didnt believe me so I showed her the card from the previous show. Didnt matter as the pony was still in its height class but just shows how inaccurate it all is weather you measure at the withers or at the last mane hair.

I also agree that using 2 different ways to measure will cause a lot of grief and headaches. I dont know what the big deal is with raising the heights? Its just a number we all set.

Although I would love to see us measure at the withers like every other breed, I think more thought needs to go into how to actually implement this that is fair and doesnt punish members. To much is at stake with people breeding to these requirements for so many years so it really needs to be looked at from all avenues before it gets passed. Would hate to see it passed and then retracted because the whole picture wasnt looked at.


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Jul 13, 2010)

I think the idea to move toward measuring like the rest of the equine world is a good one. I'm not smart enough to know the best way to implement such a change in direction, but I get why it would be a good thing. Just wish we could wave a magic wand and be there with no issues.





On a personal note, although I like the general idea, I need to think through it more but I believe it means big changes for someone like me that offers height guarantees and breeds for the under 30" horse. And I wonder what it means for horses like Raven who have titles in that 28" and Under class? Now she'd be a 28.5" horse if I took her back in the ring under the new rules I'm guessing. And it seems to me that the smallest I can get and still be of quality conformation is 28" (using current measurement) so in the future I'd not have any in that under 28" range that were of the quality that I think is acceptable for showing/breeding. Maybe Mira and Pete, but the rest would now be 28-30". It's VERY, VERY hard to get one under 28" now that is well conformed. It will be darn near impossible in the future! I guess the bright side of that is their value just went up!





It's a better mind than mine that will come up with a workable solution, but I do applaud the effort and back the reasoning.


----------



## Getitia (Jul 13, 2010)

A few thoughts and things to consider with the proposed change to measure AMHR miniatures at the withers.

I'm going to "assume" that approximately 1/2 of the AMHR members who own AMHR miniatures also own a few AMHA miniatures (many are double registered). Lets fast forward 5 years (non grandfathered horses as proposed) - and now my AMHA miniature measures 34 at the last hair of the mane - and the same miniature measures 35 at the withers for its AMHR registration - or even 34 1/2 - regardless of 1/4 inch or 1 inch difference - my AMHA miniature now is going to be an *Over* or *B division *AMHR miniature. How is that advertised? How does one explained to the general public the difference in measuring methods and how the same AMHA horse will now show in an AMHR "over" division? Do you think that AMHA will care that the AMHA horse has an AMHR "oversize" national title? If my memory serves me correctly, I believe we have a few forum members that experienced challenges with this type of issue in the past - AMHA wins and AMHR over division wins at the National level with the same horse.

Also, given the perception of many purchasers in today's market, would the horse in this example now be as valuable? - it has AMHA papers and can show as an under horse in one registry - but is AMHR "oversize" and shows accordingly in AMHR......may be seen as unfair or confusing perhaps.

Several years ago when measuring at the withers was proposed and discussed on the forum - I measured about 50 of our horses - standing square and unstretched - all of our horses measured from 1/4 inch up to 2 inches additional in height (average was about 1 inch higher) - Our biggest movers actually have the highest withers - those with mutton withers had the most minimal difference. Not one of our horses measured the same or smaller. (for those who doubt the above - bring your measuring stick and come one down to the farm)

Using just our own farms statistics above at the most extreme variation of 2 inches - lets again fast forward 5 years and move to the showring. We will have about 15 to 20+ years of the grandfathered horses measuring at the last hair showing against the nongrandfathered horses being measured at the withers. So I'm going to assume that exhibitors will not be concerned when they show a 34 inch measured at the wither nongrandfathered horse that measures 32 at the last hair against a 34 inch grandfathered horse that is measured at the last hair that is actually 36 inches measured at the withers...............

Others have mentioned different wither measurements from show to show - I have a number of shetland measurement cards with wither measurements ( I keep them all) that show about the same measurement variations as the last hair measurements-anywhere from 1/2 inch to 1 inch) on mature ponies that showed all year and then measured higher or lower at Congress.

Just a few things to perhaps consider......


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 13, 2010)

Getitia said:


> A few thoughts and things to consider with the proposed change to measure AMHR miniatures at the withers.
> 
> I'm going to "assume" that approximately 1/2 of the AMHR members who own AMHR miniatures also own a few AMHA miniatures (many are double registered). Lets fast forward 5 years (non grandfathered horses as proposed) - and now my AMHA miniature measures 34 at the last hair of the mane - and the same miniature measures 35 at the withers for its AMHR registration - or even 34 1/2 - regardless of 1/4 inch or 1 inch difference - my AMHA miniature now is going to be an *Over* or *B division *AMHR miniature. How is that advertised? How does one explained to the general public the difference in measuring methods and how the same AMHA horse will now show in an AMHR "over" division? Do you think that AMHA will care that the AMHA horse has an AMHR "oversize" national title? .....
> 
> Just a few things to perhaps consider......


A whole lot of things, I can't answer, but this one is easy. You explain it the same way you now explain the difference in measurement in AMHR/ASPC, with Pony measurement and Miniature measurement. It would be A measurement and R measurement. Hopefully AMHA would get on board and change their method also.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 13, 2010)

Great post Getitia. I have not seen the proposal (maybe someone can post it?) But I just dont think its doable until all these questions are addressed.



> Do you think that AMHA will care that the AMHA horse has an AMHR "oversize" national title? .....


This has been a huge issue in the past so we need to really think this over.


----------



## RhineStone (Jul 13, 2010)

I think some people are making this WAY more difficult than it needs to be. I don't see 35" horses at the withers as "oversize". To me (hypothetically) 34" at the last hairs of the mane is (or could be) 35" at the withers.

34" = last hairs

35" = withers

The horse hasn't changed size, the "rules" have. It's still the same horse.

In the future, the breed wouldn't think of taller than 34" being the Over division. It might become 35" as the Over division.

Or....maybe scrap the A & B altogether and design it more like the Welsh do. Every miniature would have a "value", because one size wouldn't be any more valuable than any other size. Let their talent/show record speak to their "value". Break the "sizes" into (at the withers) 30" and under, over 30" to 35", over 35" to 40". (Why are A horses considered _more valuable_ than Bs anyway? Isn't that doing a total disservice to the breed as a whole? Are smaller Welsh considered _more valuable_ than bigger ones?)

Each horse should be measured (at the withers) and shown in a class against it's own size horses, not what it's papers say it is. You wouldn't have a 32" horse against a 36" horse unless the class is designed for that.

If I show at an ADS show, my 37" (at the last hairs, 37 1/2" at the withers) horse has to go in the 39" and under VSE division UNLESS there is no VSE division. Then, he is a Small Pony. Some shows don't even have a _Small _Pony division, they just have Pony. You go in what is offered.

As far as _Grandfathered_, I see that meaning "if your horse is suddenly too tall for the registry, keep your papers anyway," not "this is the class you would show in". The horse should still be measured for the class and shown against it's own size horses.

Not rocket science.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 13, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> A whole lot of things, I can't answer, but this one is easy. You explain it the same way you now explain the difference in measurement in AMHR/ASPC, with Pony measurement and Miniature measurement. It would be A measurement and R measurement. Hopefully AMHA would get on board and change their method also.


Now that is logical


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 13, 2010)

kaykay said:


> Great post Getitia. I have not seen the proposal (maybe someone can post it?) But I just dont think its doable until all these questions are addressed.
> 
> This has been a huge issue in the past so we need to really think this over.


Yes, when the horses were being measured the SAME way.....





But we know how differently horses can measure from day to day. I don't see the issue.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Jul 13, 2010)

Oh what the heck!



Of course this would blow our breeding program all to heck and back and I am sure we wouldn't be the only ones. We have discussed promoting geldings so the mindset of 3 to 4 years and they are out is moot. Besides that if you breed the ones that grandfather in their offspring will be the same height. But of course if you have mostly AMHA herd and you want to come over to AMHR with them then that puts you at an advantage and screws the rest of us in AMHR/ASPC. Three years ago I wouldn't have believed this could happen. Seeing what we all have these last few years should tell us all something.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 13, 2010)

Well Fran.... Not sure how AMHA horses coming in to AMHR would screw the rest of us they will be measured the same way? But I must be missing the point there

- When you have been to Convention you hear many things that are proposed and honestly my mind has been changed when I was sure it wouldnt be when hearing discussion during the committee meetings.

A proposal does not mean anything will happen and the talk of measuring at the withers has been around for many years this is nothing new nothing sinister. It is simply a proposal


----------



## ruffian (Jul 13, 2010)

"Or....maybe scrap the A & B altogether and design it more like the Welsh do. Every miniature would have a "value", because one size wouldn't be any more valuable than any other size. Let their talent/show record speak to their "value". Break the "sizes" into (at the withers) 30" and under, over 30" to 35", over 35" to 40". (Why are A horses considered more valuable than Bs anyway? Isn't that doing a total disservice to the breed as a whole? Are smaller Welsh considered more valuable than bigger ones?)"

The whole concept originally of the "miniature horse" was to have the smallest, most perfect, most horse-like equine. So IMO that means that the "A" size would be more valuable as it is harder to get top quality in the smaller sizes. Comparing the miniature horse to a Welsh isn't logical as they are used for completely different things, against different standards. The founders of the AMHA & AMHR wanted to get a tiny, perfect horse, and it can be done - look at LK Buck Echo - 28" of perfection!

"Each horse should be measured (at the withers) and shown in a class against it's own size horses, not what it's papers say it is. You wouldn't have a 32" horse against a 36" horse unless the class is designed for that.

"

This would depend on if there are size splits at the show. Many local shows only have 34" and under, over 34 to 38". It's already difficult for the smaller horses (30", 29" even 32") to compete against the 33 1/2, 34" ones. Until the judges get on board with understanding that the smaller horse - of similar quality! - should win, it's going to keep people breeding for the top limits of the size class.

But I absolutely agree that miniatures should be measured at the withers - just figuring out all the options and caveats is going to be a challenge!!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 13, 2010)

I guess its just me but I don't see the reasoning for raising the heights. Measuring to the withers is just another step in becoming a breed. The breed itself has evolved, this is just another hurdle, and its a necessary hurdle. How many people I have seen changed there breeding programs because the AMHR/ASPC horses are winning, some may need to change again, thats just the way it is. It looks like the older horses will be ok, and continue to do what we have been doing. If we have to breed smaller we can do that, we are suppose to have the smallest horses as it is. Also if you do raise the heights for the Bs you have to do it for the As. Its only fair. You don't want your 33" horse competing against a 38" horse (measuring to the last hair).

I don't see how it should interfere when it comes to AMHA. Its a whole different registry, it has their own rules, no big deal. Also this will help with AMHR overseas as they measure at the withers.

My only concern is we don't want to rush this, we really need to go thru this proposal carefully, which is why I have said is 2011 too soon.


----------



## RhineStone (Jul 14, 2010)

ruffian said:


> The founders of the AMHA & AMHR wanted to get a tiny, perfect horse, and it can be done - look at LK Buck Echo - 28" of perfection!


But in the mean time, other people started asking, "What do you _do_ with them?" If the breed association wants to be all about _little_, then scrap the performance arenas. Bigger horses should have as much value as little ones. Otherwise, the associations should have a 28" limit.





I still don't get why people think it is actually raising the height limits. It's not, just raising where you measure to and accounting for the difference.

I also don't understand why people think that little horses will be shown against bigger horses because they would be measured differently than they are now. Why would you not put them in their own height class? Yes, some shows only offer X amount of classes, but how does that change anything based on where you measure them at?

I don't understand the confusion.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 14, 2010)

Rhinestone--did you read Belinda's post? The show horses aren't all going to be measured the same way. If this rule change goes through, 5 years from now you could have a harness class with the 2011 foals being measured at the withers, giving them a maximum height of 38" for the over division. In the same class will be the 2009 or 2010 foals that will be grandfathered in, which means that they will still be measured the old way--at the last mane hair. So some of those 2009 or 2010 foals may be measuring in at 38" at the last mane hair, which could mean they are 39" or even closer to 40" at the top of the withers. Thus, there will be some bigger horses showing in the 38" and under class.

Because this proposal doesn't include increasing the size to allow for the difference between top of withers and last mane hair, it does mean that the Minis will actually have to be smaller in order to be registered. The 38" at the top of the withers horse may be only 37" or 36" at the last mane hair...so it is changing the size of the breed overall.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Jul 14, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> Well Fran.... Not sure how AMHA horses coming in to AMHR would screw the rest of us they will be measured the same way? But I must be missing the point there
> 
> - When you have been to Convention you hear many things that are proposed and honestly my mind has been changed when I was sure it wouldnt be when hearing discussion during the committee meetings.
> 
> A proposal does not mean anything will happen and the talk of measuring at the withers has been around for many years this is nothing new nothing sinister. It is simply a proposal



Well Lisa.... I have absolutely nothing against AMHA people. Their horses would be the only ones that would measure in if this proposal would make it. And we all know if certain people want it, it will happen. Right or not.......wanted by the members or not...... And I think my post was pretty clear.


----------



## alphahorses (Jul 14, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> If we have to breed smaller we can do that, we are suppose to have the smallest horses as it is.


AMHA considers smaller horses to be of more value, NOT AMHR. There are a lot of us who have no interest in raising smaller horses and intentionally breed for "B" size. To some, 30" is a perfect horse. To me, 37-38" is perfect. That is the beauty of this registry - there is a place for everyone.



JMS Miniatures said:


> some may need to change again, thats just the way it is.


I find it sad how quick people are to disgard the interests of others. The adjustement in breeding programs that you are talking about with ASPC/AMHR horse is partly a QUALITY and partly a TYPE change. Qualty changes should always be our goal. Types come and go, but your horses are not disqualified because they are not of the ASPC/AMHR TYPE.

This is totally different. This is a rule change that would eventually disqualify an entire group of horses, or at least their offspring. There are a lot of small breeders whose entire herds will no longer qualify for AMHR. Let's consider the breed - and other people - in this decision. Some good discussion and suggestions have come out of this thread. Let's not be so quick to just say "oh well" to the life savings, time, dedication, and even love, that have gone into other people's breeding programs.


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 14, 2010)

I always knew it was true. Some people breed for the "smallest possible horse" and some people breed for the tallest horse they can possibly squeeze in to the registry. I guess it's natural that everyone will push for their own goals.


----------



## alphahorses (Jul 14, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> I always knew it was true. Some people breed for the "smallest possible horse" and some people breed for the tallest horse they can possibly squeeze in to the registry. I guess it's natural that everyone will push for their own goals.


Yes - so let's start taking other people's goals into consideration, and stop just thinking about ourselves (and that starts by leaving out unnecesary comments about people "squeezing" tall horses into the registry. I've seen horses squeezed into all height divisions).

1. People who raise small horses have a point - their horses are less marketable if they now have to advertise them as 31" instead of 30". It is confussing if they have one height for AMHA and another for AMHR.

2. People who raise taller horses do not want their horses disqualified or their offspring disqualified (call it whatever you want, but even if you grandfather a tall horse in for registration and show purposes, you have disqualified them as a breeding animal because their offspring will likely be over).

3. The standard measurement for all other horses is at the withers, not at the last hair.

These are all VALID concerns.

I agree that we should have measured from the withers from the beginning instead of trying to make horses sound smaller than they really are by measuring at the last hair. That ship has sailed. I personally would like to see them measured at the withers in the future, but can live with measuring at the last hair. If we are going to do this, we need to find a way to take everyone's concerns into account, or we need to leave things as is.


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 14, 2010)

It amazes me every time this subject comes up how negative some folks can get, bottom line is for all of us that do Mini's is that if we ever want to be accepted by the majority of the equine world then we need to change the way we measure our horses. Whatever it takes to get in step with the other breeds, in my opinion is worth the hassle.





Yes there are some inherent problems with making the change, but if that is what needs to happen for the betterment of the breed from my standpoint so be it. I personally like the bigger horses, but Cindy likes the little guys so we do all three ASPC/AMHR/AMHA to satisfy the needs we each have.





Adjustment of the height seems to make sense so as not to penalize the current B size taller horses(that I love), but then again if I need to readjust my breeding program I can and will in order to get things into perspective.





It really gets tiring answering the question of why we do not measure our mini's to the top of the withers from new folks just entering the industry. And it makes us look pretty silly when we try to explain it to them.





My honest suggestion to the BOD and members attending the National meeting is to look at what is best for the industry as a whole, not what is in our best personal interest!! That has gone on too many times in the past.





Bottom line it is a tough position to be in, but it is one of our own making back when the founding fathers of both AMHA & AMHR decided to use this method of measuring to make their horses appear smaller than they really were, merely for marketing concerns.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 14, 2010)

OhHorsePee said:


> Well Lisa.... I have absolutely nothing against AMHA people. Their horses would be the only ones that would measure in if this proposal would make it. And we all know if certain people want it, it will happen. Right or not.......wanted by the members or not...... And I think my post was pretty clear.


LOL again not sure what you mean... I have B AMHR horses that would measure in even if they decided not to grandfather in the horses previous to 2011. I am sure there are plenty of AMHR B horses and AMHR A horses who would still remain in size. *I am confident in the fact that if this proposal passes those AMHA horses coming into* *AMHR WILL NOTBE THE ONLY ONES THAT WILL MEASURE IN*

Your post was clear on one thing you seem to be sure sinister things are going on in AMHR/ASPC which of course I do not agree with

Do I agree with every decision- nope but then again I usually do not have all the facts either. I shouldnt agree with every decision it is not the Lisa registry and for as many that disagree with a decision there is equally as many that do agree. No one decision will please everyone

Again if you go to Convention and hear the discussion in the committee meetings you will see more often then not in fact the majority of the time.. The proposals that pass or fail in the board meeting are voted the same way they were in committee meetings by general membership

John I agree I think it makes us look silly. I have been asked just recently why we measure this way and the response (from the big horse people 2 of whom were judges and trainers) Oh so you can fool yourself and others into thinking they are smaller then they are... my only answer to her was....umm ya pretty much I guess lol


----------



## OhHorsePee (Jul 14, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> LOL again not sure what you mean... I have B AMHR horses that would measure in even if they decided not to grandfather in the horses previous to 2011. I am sure there are plenty of AMHR B horses and AMHR A horses who would still remain in size. *I am confident in the fact that if this proposal passes those AMHA horses coming into* *AMHR WILL NOTBE THE ONLY ONES THAT WILL MEASURE IN*
> 
> Your post was clear on one thing you seem to be sure sinister things are going on in AMHR which of course I do not agree with
> 
> Again if you go to Convention and hear the discussion in the committee meetings you will see more often then not in fact the majority of the time.. The proposals that pass or fail in the board meeting are voted the same way they were in committee meetings by general membership


This is suppose to be a discussion not a personal fight. When you came back from Convention wanting to hire a lawyer no one accused you of being paranoid. Now keep it a discussion please...... I guess I shouldn't have used the word 'only" either. If my word of "only" upset anyone I apologize.

Is there a way that we can get a copy of the proposal on here so we can all have an informed discussion about what will ACTUALLY be proposed not what someone thinks will be proposed?


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Jul 14, 2010)

I have not seen the proposal so I am not expressing an opinion about it but do have some questions and a comment to share.

Where can we obtain a copy of this proposal?

Who is the author(s) and/or presenters of this proposal?

Comment: We have/had horses of various breeds, AQHA, Appaloosa, Pinto, Paint, POA, ASPC, AMHR, AMHA. My husband and our family have world and national titles in all and have exported horses around the world since the 1970s. I share this to give you an idea of the breadth of our experience and the volume and variety of contacts we have. In all of our dealings with customers and colleagues I've never been asked to explain why we measure where we do!

I hear some saying our measuring method makes us look silly or that other associations look down on us. I have never found this to be true, it is a non-issue in my opinion. Our method of measuring is an association rule and should only be altered if/when the majority of the members deem it would be a benefit to our members and our association. What other associations and breeds do or don't do is their business, what we do or don't do should be our members business.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 14, 2010)

It seems that a person cannot take a neutral position without getting jumped on by both sides.



alphahorses said:


> > Songcatcher, on 14 July 2010 - 08:46 AM, said:
> > I always knew it was true. Some people breed for the "smallest possible horse" and some people breed for the tallest horse they can possibly squeeze in to the registry. I guess it's natural that everyone will push for their own goals.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## alphahorses (Jul 14, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> It seems that a person cannot take a neutral position without getting jumped on by both sides.


Actually, I was agreeing with most of what you said - except for the comment about people trying to "squeeze" in horses which could be taken as implying people are somehow trying to cheat. I wanted to point out that both small and tall breeders have valid points and we need to think as one organization without considering one size horse better than the other.

I'm sorry if you felt jumped on.


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 14, 2010)

alphahorses said:


> Actually, I was agreeing with most of what you said - except for the comment about people trying to "squeeze" in horses. You have to understand - there is a lot of controversy over horses who are over 38" showing at AMHR shows. We only show in AMHR if the horse is easily measured in, so that type of comment stirs up controversy.
> 
> I'm sorry if you felt jumped on.


Thank you.


----------



## RhineStone (Jul 14, 2010)

Minimor said:


> Rhinestone--did you read Belinda's post? *The show horses aren't all going to be measured the same way.* If this rule change goes through, 5 years from now you could have a harness class with the 2011 foals being measured at the withers, giving them a maximum height of 38" for the over division. In the same class will be the 2009 or 2010 foals that will be grandfathered in, which means that they will still be measured the old way--at the last mane hair. So some of those 2009 or 2010 foals may be measuring in at 38" at the last mane hair, which could mean they are 39" or even closer to 40" at the top of the withers. Thus, there will be some bigger horses showing in the 38" and under class.
> 
> Because this *proposal doesn't include increasing the size to allow for the difference between top of withers and last mane hair*, it does mean that the Minis will actually have to be smaller in order to be registered. The 38" at the top of the withers horse may be only 37" or 36" at the last mane hair...so it is changing the size of the breed overall.


That's just stupid. Why would you not measure all horses the same way at the same show? Then they are all showing in their own height class regardless of when they were born.

Again, I think that _grandfathering_ should mean that if your horse suddenly goes over height with the new measuring system, you can still keep your papers for it, and it's offspring could be registered. What should that have to do with showing?

So if that is what the proposal states, shoot it down and start over. (BTW, *is there a place to read the actual proposal* or are we all just making assumptions and wasting our breath/typing fingers?)


----------



## Belinda (Jul 14, 2010)

I would like to say that there are lots of good points being discussed and that is what this Forum is for , Thanks Mary Lou. But I would like to add that it looks like it is about to blow the Turn as there is starting to be some







So PLEASE lets continue to discuss this in a friendly way so that it does not get closed down.. This is very important to many Poeple and those that are concerned you need to come to Convention as that is where this will be voted on , and yes we can make changes to the proposal as long as the person that sent the proposal in is there and Ok's the changes... And that person will be there and they are open to suggestions !!!!


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 14, 2010)

Fran... I assure you I am NOT fighting...I am sorry if it seemed that way. Sometimes the written word does not always convey the intent

Thanks for bringing up Convention and yes you are correct.. there was talk of an attorney as our by -laws were not clearly understood and contradict eacother on many occassions however.. we have a very intelligent man heading up the by laws committee and going over them to ensure they are both understood, not contradicted by eachother There was a need for change and the BOD has handled it.

I will say once again I have not agreed with every decision the BOD has made- it is not the Lisa registry. Life does not always go according to Lisa.. I might not always like it but it is a fact us grown ups have to accept





I also have to admit sometimes I do go with what Songcatcher and John both said.. what works for me - what fits my agenda and that might not always be best for the registry as a whole in the long run. More times then not once some time has passed and I am able to think outside of myself I can see the reasoning behind decisions I did not originally agree with and see they have valid points.

And sometimes .. as much as I hate to admit it lol I have just been plain wrong





But now lets get back to the issue at hand which is a proposal-Many are bringing up some valid points on both sides... very good discussion


----------



## Devon (Jul 14, 2010)

The only issue I have with this is that I personally know there is a almost 2 inch differance on my ponies from back to wither .......

I did read above that the horses form older generations would be measured the old way BUT still should I not breed my 37" horses then because I know when shown shetland they measure alot bigger..


----------



## Devon (Jul 14, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> LOL again not sure what you mean... I have B AMHR horses that would measure in even if they decided not to grandfather in the horses previous to 2011. I am sure there are plenty of AMHR B horses and AMHR A horses who would still remain in size. *I am confident in the fact that if this proposal passes those AMHA horses coming into* *AMHR WILL NOTBE THE ONLY ONES THAT WILL MEASURE IN*


Have you tried measuring them at the wither it is such a large differance almost every hrose thats aspc/amhr have measures etleast an inch differance at congress then nationals.. Its so frustrating I have a horse who is so safely AMHR he measured 36.5 this year he is not pushing it at all and I bet if you took it up to his wither I'd have to worry ..


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 14, 2010)

Devon,

I am sure there is at least a 1-3" difference in the measurement from the last mane hair to the top of the withers. I was just in the barn and measured a couple of ours that are on the show circuit and they ran anywhere for 1 1/4" to 2 1/8" higher. In our case it would not make a difference as they would still measure in, but one would go into the B classes and the other would remain in the A classes.

Belinda,

Has anyone made any suggestions on how to handle the height requirements?

Would the height requirements for the classes remain the same as the are now 38" and under and 34" & under as it is currently written?

Jacki, like you we have been in big horses for over thirty years (mainly AQHA, ACHA and ARHA). We have been ask by many folks over the years about the discrepancy. While I agree with you we DON'T have to follow the other breeds, the continuity would be a good thing for us I think.





I agree with the others to, lets keep this thing civil so we can have a voicing of opinions, I think it is important.


----------



## Devon (Jul 14, 2010)

JWC sr. said:


> Devon,
> 
> I am sure there is at least a 1-3" difference in the measurement from the last mane hair to the top of the withers. I was just in the barn and measured a couple of ours that are on the show circuit and they ran anywhere for 1 1/4" to 2 1/8" higher. In our case it would not make a difference as they would still measure in, but one would go into the B classes and the other would remain in the A classes.
> 
> ...


Yea I mean most of mine would be fine and I wouldn't worry at all but what about your taller ASPC horses? That are fine for height now but may be now considered pushing it? Thats where im at though Im sure my 36.5" guy would be ok but he'd be pushing it and I'm really not comfortable with that.. Also should I breed him? And now I need to have 35-36" horses and worry.. I just don't think it's a great idea its like we have to have all minis under 36.5 now any that we own that are taller probably won't make the cut..

On the same note some horses have like next to no wither and some have a 3 inch wither yet standing side by side you'll find the one that measured 3" taller is exactly the same height.. I get that in large horses it is how it's done BUT height is not nearly as big a deal... You don't get your papers thrown away and no chance to show while other horses out in the ring are the exact same size as your horse but with no wither.. I just don't feel the height of my horse should be based on the bone on his back which is such a lottery height wise...more like the actual height he stands from his back..


----------



## targetsmom (Jul 14, 2010)

OK, I admit I have not read every single reply on this thread so i don't know if this issue was raised..

When this discussion came up for AMHA, I proposed that the height be measured to the top of the withers AND THEN SUBTRACT THE HEIGHT OF THE HOOF. This could be heel height or whatever, but the effect would be 1) people wouldn't trim hooves down to nothing to measure a certain height and 2) the height would more closely approximate the current "last mane hair" height, which would address a lot of the issues raised here. Of course, it would take a bit more time to measure each horse.


----------



## Lisa Strass (Jul 14, 2010)

Ok, I've slept on this which I always find helpful.





For those that don't know me, Mike and I raise ASPC and ASPC/AMHR horses that we show and promote (and win on the National level in halter and driving) in both ASPC and AMHR. We usually have about 8 foals a year, so I would consider us a small breeder. The goal of our breeding program has been to produce National Champion 34-38" horses. My reason for stating all this is to let all of you know that we are definitely one of the breeders who would be impacted greatly, and we have put a lot of hard work and money into our program.

My thoughts haven't changed much from my 1st post, but let me expand on them a bit...

- *Measure at the withers* - I still think this is a good idea as it is how all horses (except AMHA and AMHR are measured). This means a horse in ASPC/AMHR would have one measurement. Consistency is good! Within our own organization, we wouldn't have to say well as a mini, it measures this and as a Shetland it measures this. I'm really not concerned about what the horses measures in AMHA. That is a different organization and may even change itself if it is the ONLY horse registry in the world that measures differently.

- *Grandfathering for show purposes* - I really think this just opens a can of worms and will cause a lot of unhappy feelings for years to come especially at the National show. However, I do think it is OK to keep horses grandfathered for breeding purposes similar to what AMHA did many years ago. I don't think a horse should lose its papers over this, but unfortunately, there will by many geldings that lose some value as they can no longer show in the R division and obviously can't be bred. Note that I say *some* value. Many of these horses will still have their ASPC papers and can still be shown as such. Let's not forget that I think THE most successful sale this year was ASPC horses and the high selling horses were ASPC registered only!!!

- *Do not raise the height limit* - I guess I am one that believes in going forward. You don't get better if you aren't challenged. The miniature horse is supposed to be a Miniature horse. Raising the height limit doesn't get us closer to that goal.

To sum this up, we need to show our horses where they belong. If they are truly 38" and under at the withers, we show them in AMHR. If not, we show them in ASPC. Most of our shows already offer both divisions. To me, this really seems like a win/win for both sides of our organization. Normally, I am against the addition of more classes, but in this case I think the organization as a whole should offer these horses that are directly impacted a 38-40" subdivision of the Unders at Congress.

Mares are already bred for 2011 foals, so I would suggest this change takes place effective with the 2012 show season.

Will this cause me to make changes to my program? Absolutely! Does it change the way I personally rank my horses? Yes. But I do believe it is a progressive step for ASPC / AMHR as a whole.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 14, 2010)

Having a couple double registered, this doesn't effect my farm hugely- BUT to clarify for everyone- the rule proposal changes had a deadline of July 1 to be to the appropriate chairs of their respective committees.

I am not sure the AMHR Chair reads this forum. Possibly they have not digested the proposal yet either??? It would be nice if the proposal was posted so that all could read and make an informed decision before Committee's meet and Convention is held, to hear from the AMHR and yes the ASPC membership, (as they have a stake in the double registered equine). It's been asked for 3 times now, hopefully someone will post it before either on the registry website or the forums. As we all know our official publication may or may not get the proposals out in time. And there is no dig there for or to anyone - its just a matter of if it will get out in time for convention.

And of course, may I remind everyone, its good to discuss these topics and throw ideas out to see if they stick, but the committee gets it first and then its presented to the BOD at convention. With that said, get to know your committee and its chair and your area BOD members, let them know your thoughts as well a posting here.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 14, 2010)

But Lisa S, if we don't change the heights (which is a number we came up with to begin with), what about all those AMHR ONLY horses that measure 38" at the last mane hair? Those horses would be completely out of the program because they aren't shetlands.

This proposal won't affect my breeding program as I focus on ASPC only BUT it will affect my AMHR clients.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Jul 14, 2010)

John, You mention being asked about the "discrepancy", discrepancy with what/who? As I understand it both AMHR & AMHA measure the same way, last hair of the main, correct?

Several of us have asked if the proposal is available, can anyone answer that question or tell us who the author/presenter of the proposal is?

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 14, 2010)

Although Lisa Strass and I have totally different breeding programs, I can't find anything in her post that I disagree with.

ASPC/AMHR horses that go oversize (and some do already) are still registered and eligible to show in ASPC. Regarding R only horses that will be oversized, some horses do go oversize in both A and R. I'm told ASPC/AMHR has a Show Pony registry to solve that problem.


----------



## Lisa Strass (Jul 14, 2010)

txminipinto said:


> But Lisa S, if we don't change the heights (which is a number we came up with to begin with), what about all those AMHR ONLY horses that measure 38" at the last mane hair? Those horses would be completely out of the program because they aren't shetlands.
> 
> This proposal won't affect my breeding program as I focus on ASPC only BUT it will affect my AMHR clients.



I realize this, and this situation is particularly unfortunate. I guess I would say it isn't unprecedented as AMHA did this with the Oversise breeding stock. And sometimes change, even for the better, is painful.

Yes, the height was arbitrarily chosen back in the day. But that doesn't mean arbitrarily raising it is the right answer either. I mean why just 1"? To truly account for ALL THE HORSES being shown, the height would need to be raised about 2". So now you are at 40"!! I really don't think that was/or is the goal of the Miniature horse as a breed. No matter what method is chosen, someone's horses will be directly affected, so we need to think about what makes sense and what is best for the organization as a whole.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 14, 2010)

Devon.. Yes it could mean if there is no difference in measuring for those horses already registered.. that I would have a 38.00 in horse who would not be able to show - the horse is not ASPC registered...

I do also have others whose height would not change much and even with the change would be ok and stay in size.

It would suck for me to be honest to not be able to show my 38.00 horse anywhere and suddenly have a grade horse. It would suck big time in fact..I am not sure what the answer is for the many horses out there like mine- or how to address those types of things. It is not my proposal

On the other hand I do think we should measure at the withers - I am not sure how to make that peacefully coexisit with the fact there are a lot of truly honest 37-38 inch single registered horses that would over night become grade horses


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 14, 2010)

I am all for this proposal, AS I UNDERSTAND IT...but not having read it myself...really, how does one know "what is what"?



> if we don't change the heights (which is a number we came up with to begin with), what about all those AMHR ONLY horses that measure 38" at the last mane hair? Those horses would be completely out of the program because they aren't shetlands.


Exactly. There HAS to be some form of rule allowing horses registered now...to remain so. You CANNOT just tell someone..."We have changed the rules, now send your now unregistered (due to rule changes)horse's papers back. CAN YOU SAYYYYYY...L-A-W-S-U-I-T???????

Let those with "safely under" horses, not be so complacent as to think that the ones with horses LEGALLY, "on the edge of over-size" will just allow their horses and breeding programs be taken from them with a change in the rulebook. they have as much right to be considered here as those who breed the smaller horses. Besides, "your" 28" horse will NOW very likely become 30" or taller...it will affect "you" too.

I think it is time for us to "get over ourselves", get this registry/association to come together as a BREED registry, and all horses stay registered - period.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 14, 2010)

> And that person will be there and they are open to suggestions !!!!


Belinda did you submit the proposal? Or maybe its just someone you know? Just would be nice to read how its written. I know last year they did put out the proposals a long with who wrote them. Will they be doing that this year before convention?


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 14, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> Although Lisa Strass and I have totally different breeding programs, I can't find anything in her post that I disagree with.
> 
> ASPC/AMHR horses that go oversize (and some do already) are still registered and eligible to show in ASPC. Regarding R only horses that will be oversized, some horses do go oversize in both A and R. I'm told ASPC/AMHR has a Show Pony registry to solve that problem.


I have to disagree about the show pony division. I have a 10 year old AMHR only gelding (both parents deceased with no dna on file) so I am unable to register him as a National Show Pony Registry. So unless you can get DNA, you won't be able to show in that division and that is only at Congress. Luckily I have a shetland that was able to be registered as a NSPR.

But that would leave my AMHA hardshipped into AMHR gelding in the pasture. Depending upon who measures him he will either be in or out. Considering there was a 3 inch difference measurement in a two week period. And feet don't grow that fast. He goes 37-37.5 last mane hair but AMHR came out to resolve a dispute on height (finding him not over 38 inches), but I did ask them to give me a measurement off the top of his withers and did give me a measurement of 39 inches. And he is extremely high withered and not a shetland, though he looks more like a shetland than my ASPC shetlands.

Now if we can change the requirements to drop the DNA verification which was suppose to vertify cross registered ponies or minis with any other breed. But maybe a proposal for currently registered minis to automatically be eligible with either AMHR or ASPC papers be able to be registered without the DNA verification, then it would work. Of course that would bring us to a "C" division as Mini Nationals. Also NSPR is a performance division, not a halter/breeding division.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 14, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> Although Lisa Strass and I have totally different breeding programs, I can't find anything in her post that I disagree with.
> 
> ASPC/AMHR horses that go oversize (and some do already) are still registered and eligible to show in ASPC. Regarding R only horses that will be oversized, some horses do go oversize in both A and R. I'm told ASPC/AMHR has a Show Pony registry to solve that problem.


Section III Part 3 (Page 40) - An animal measured out as a Shetland but desiring to compete in ASPR as a result of that measurement may apply for registration at a sanctioned show with an ASPC/AMHR licensed Steward and is eligible to

compete once application is completed and fee paid to said official.

Here is the officil Eligibility for ASPR ponies:

Section VIII Part I (page 164)

Part 1 – Eligibility

Any pony that is registered with the American Shetland Pony Club, the Hackney Horse Society or any pony that is the

result of the mating of a registered Shetland and a registered Hackney Pony, any pony that is the result of the mating of a

registered Shetland and a registered American Show Pony, any pony that is the result of the mating of a registered Hackney

and a registered American Show Pony, or any pony that is the result of the mating of a registered American Show Pony to an

American Show Pony is eligible to be recorded in the stud book of the ASPR upon the completion of an application for

registration and submission of the appropriate fee.


----------



## Devon (Jul 14, 2010)

Tell me this why does anyone feel that measuring at the wither is such a good way?Other then that's horse every other breed does it.. Every other breed is differant they are not height breeds.. Does that reflect an animals height ? I don't feel it does its just a high spot on the back that every horse has.. a horses height to me is their back where there is nothing that differs from horse to horse.. Why do you really feel that the wither would be so great its probably more unfair then the last hair etleast that goes down the back and reflects the horses height.This is now conformation coming into play :s


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 14, 2010)

muffntuf said:


> Section III Part 3 (Page 40) - An animal measured out as a Shetland but desiring to compete in ASPR as a result of that measurement may apply for registration at a sanctioned show with an ASPC/AMHR licensed Steward and is eligible to
> 
> compete once application is completed and fee paid to said official.
> 
> ...


Unless you have an extreme modern, you will never be able to compete under current rules. At Area III, I took my shetland who carries ASPC and ASPR and NSPR papers to show. He is truely a modern pleasure. For two years now I have shown him against full blooded hackney ponies. Not enough leg action to win, but he is very competitive. Again this division would have to be expanded. I know there was a proposal to add a pleasure halter division to all equal competition.

Now if someone was to come against my 46 inch MP with a AMHR only "over" pony/mini, they would say no fair, difference in entries would be like comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 14, 2010)

I forgot to mention that the NSPR only offers 3 classes at Congress. 1 driving class, 1 english riding class and 1 western riding class. No halter classes.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 14, 2010)

MMMm - I have shown for 2 years and do show a MP Stallion in ASPR as well and we do fine, Grands and Reserves, I believe they can be competitive. JMHO.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 14, 2010)

muffntuf said:


> MMMm - I have shown for 2 years and do show a MP Stallion in ASPR as well and we do fine, Grands and Reserves, I believe they can be competitive. JMHO.


Ah, but do you show against Dr. Wahl? Ha ha. Proud to have taken second to him in amateur incentive. Even his son Mike took my MP against his dad and got beat by Heartlands March to Victory. I chalked it up to a good experience.

Just glad I didn't have to go against Ken-Mars Special Attraction (Andy).


----------



## Yaddax3 (Jul 14, 2010)

I will echo what others have asked:

Can we please see the proposal, or be told of its contents?

Belinda appears to have knowledge of the proposal's contents. So, Belinda, can you please explain the proposal as it is submitted instead of leaving us to guess? You brought up the grandfathering option. Is that in the proposal?

Also, is it protocol to give anonymity to people who make proposals until the proposal is delivered at Convention? I have a hard time believing the person making the proposal isn't scouring this thread to see what others are saying. So, I ask that they speak up and fill in the blanks.

This thread is approaching double digits for pages and most of us still are in the dark about what's in the proposal. Give us some illumination here.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 14, 2010)

Crabtree - yeah I know you are in Ken and Mary's area, I still have yet to win against them with any of my ASPR ponies in halter, but hey - I am always working towards that goal! But I have shown against other ASPR ponies I consider to be in their caliber, this year there is one on our area circuit I keep coming in Reserve too, but he deserves the grands. I have only had one show we met up at that my MP was ticking at level, that pony is above level. So the better pony won! And then my poor MP went back to his MP class and had to unwire his attitude to show in MP. LOL!


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 14, 2010)

muffntuf said:


> Crabtree - yeah I know you are in Ken and Mary's area, I still have yet to win against them with any of my ASPR ponies in halter, but hey - I am always working towards that goal! But I have shown against other ASPR ponies I consider to be in their caliber, this year there is one on our area circuit I keep coming in Reserve too, but he deserves the grands. I have only had one show we met up at that my MP was ticking at level, that pony is above level. So the better pony won! And then my poor MP went back to his MP class and had to unwire his attitude to show in MP. LOL!



If more people would have your attitude it would be great. One of these days I hope to beat 5r Wahl, and I plan on working on doing that.

Back to the thread, I doubt a AMHR pony would be very competitve in ASPR, though there are a few and I would love to have those ponies. Especially that pony that won the over the park class and I believe he is 38 or less in height. So ASPR would have to be revamped to include those over minis. I doubt it could happen. Again it looks like a "C" division. Imagine all those minis whose papers would be valid again. More $$$$ for the association.


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (Jul 14, 2010)

Myrna, I agree with you on almost everything you've said but if a grandfathered horse is still theoretically eligible to show based on holding papers with an under-at-the-last-mane-hair-measurement but measures over using the withers at the actual event, what division do you put it in?



Devon said:


> Tell me this why does anyone feel that measuring at the wither is such a good way? Other then that's horse every other breed does it.. Every other breed is differant they are not height breeds.. Does that reflect an animals height ? I don't feel it does its just a high spot on the back that every horse has.. a horses height to me is their back where there is nothing that differs from horse to horse.. Why do you really feel that the wither would be so great its probably more unfair then the last hair etleast that goes down the back and reflects the horses height.This is now conformation coming into play :s


This is actually a very fair question and worth considering, Devon. (Bear with me, folks.) Ignoring the fact that "every other breed does it," _*why*_ does every other breed do it that way? The withers truly are very different from horse to horse and can greatly affect the final height an individual horse measures just as the length of the mane can for our current measurement system. And true, the real "height" of the horse as we experience it from day to day is the height of the entire animal, i.e. the topline along the back and rump.

So starting from scratch, as if one of use were suddenly asked to decide how to measure a strange and unfamiliar animal like a camel, how would we do it?

Well, you really can't measure from the true highest point of the animal as that is the head and the height of that particular feature is more than a bit adjustable.



So we work down to the more stable back of the animal. We could measure at the rump but on most correctly built horses, that isn't (or shouldn't be) the highest point on the skeleton. That ought to be up at the shoulder. If you measure on the back itself, well, the vertebrae there are supported only by a system of muscles and ligaments and is not, in and of itself, a stable skeletal point even for that individual. Look at a sway-backed horse! Has he shrunk since he was younger? No. The shoulder and hip stand just as tall but the back has dropped dramatically in between. We must pick the tallest stable point of the horse if we are going to measure how tall the animal truly is, and that is the wither. The last mane hair meets the test for stability over a lifetime but it is not, in fact, the tallest stable point on the animal. Now granted for the minis it has turned into a consistent place to measure to generally indicate the height of the animal in comparison to other equines measured similarly, but why on earth did we pick it in the first place except to make the measurements sound smaller?



It is time to join the rest of the world and measure the tallest point of the animal when saying how tall they are. We don't measure people at the ears or the shoulders to say how tall we are; we measure to the top of the head because _that's how tall we are_. That's how tall a doorframe or shelf or anything else has to be so I don't bang my head on it. If you measure a horse at the back and use that to put a bar across his stall door, he won't be able to get in because he's going to bang his withers on it.

We aren't making our horses any bigger by measuring at the withers, in fact we'd be shrinking the breed if the height limits are not adjusted to match as only animals who truly ARE 34" and 38" at the tallest point would be showing. There are other competitions where height matters very much (look at hunter ponies!) and a lot is at stake if the horse doesn't measure under- they still measure at the withers because that's how tall the horse is. They can raise or lower their heads, tuck their rumps, etc., but short of standing spraddle-legged there's not much a horse can do to lower their withers. Raise them, yes, but not lower them! It's a good consistent point to measure.

Leia

P.S.- Just a point, those marketing minis for CDE are already listing both their breed height and withers height. It wouldn't be any harder to list AMHA height and AMHR height on an ad.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 14, 2010)

So Leia, how would you handle all the miniatures who will measure out of the registry if we hold to the 38" and under and do not hold an ASPC paper? I can only imagine the numbers of miniatures out there, and farms who have decided to breed B miniatures, could have many of their stock at risk of loosing their papers and their offspring could potentially be lost as well.

This is the conundrum I see, the biggest obstacle. And potentially a revenue loss for the registry in the long run.


----------



## RhineStone (Jul 14, 2010)

hobbyhorse23 said:


> Myrna, I agree with you on almost everything you've said but if a grandfathered horse is still theoretically eligible to show based on holding papers with an under-at-the-last-mane-hair-measurement but measures over using the withers at the actual event, what division do you put it in?
> 
> The tallest one. It totally isn't fair to those whose horses are borderline right now to take away their papers and show rights because we now measure differently. It is still the same horse. As someone has already mentioned, that seems like grounds for a lawsuit. They have paid their $$ as much as anyone else, why does the registry want to take that away? (BTW, this doesn't affect me at all right now, my AMHR horses are under that 38" limit regardless of where you measure them. I have the entire industry in mind.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Devon (Jul 14, 2010)

It's so frustrating to read;And sad for the money time and effort put into horses that are so safely AMHR height for the current rules and are now going to be kicked out; Thats fine for you who plan to just breed them but their get won't be able to show so whats the point? And what about a gelding I suppose there is no use for a nice amhr b gelding that is 36" and now 38.1/4". It is not fair to change it now; I understand the change and how much more accurate it is being something you cannot alter; but you cannot penalize the current horses .. It's not fair; you can change the rule but must account for whats currently being bred and I hope you allow those horses that are fairly amhr as to our current measuring system to show.


----------



## R3 (Jul 14, 2010)

One thing that I don’t think I’ve seen discussed yet is the potential impact this could have on other Miniature Horse organization, both in the U.S. and Internationally.

Although this measure is being discussed for AMHR, what happens in AMHR can be used as a precedent for what is done in AMHA, (and the same is true that what happens in AMHA is sometimes used as a precedent for AMHR). AMHR and AMHA are two distinct organizations, but they do tend to mirror each other in most all of the significant areas (other than the fact that AMHR has a second division for horses over 34” tall). I may be wrong, but I think that people are more comfortable with this than if the two organizations varied greatly in ‘how’ they did things.

Right now, AMHR and AMHA measure from the same spot, the last hair of the mane (LHOTM). If AMHR were to successfully change the spot to the ‘top’ of the withers (TOTW), I think there would be renewed interest in changing the way that AMHA measures also.

There have been proposals to change AMHA measuring to the TOTW (I personally wrote and fought for some of them), but up until now, it has been rejected. I believe that the biggest reason has been the controversy over what to do about the difference in ‘height’ from the LHOTM and the TOTW.

As has been stated by others, there are only two options to resolve the conflict: ‘Grandfather’ all the current horses that meet the height standard based on the LHOTM (but not if measured at the TOTW), or raise the height from 38” to some higher number, such as 39” or 40”. The problem is that neither solution will please everyone, so it creates some very ‘hot’ discussion.

The reason I see the proposal potentially affecting International organizations is that if AMHR successfully changes, then AMHA may try to follow suit, and then their decision about how to address the height difference will directly affect the International AMHA horses. There is already concern about measuring from the LHOTM with the International AMHA members as overseas they ALREADY measure their horses from the TOTW. They have to be extra careful when shopping for American horses as they cannot rely on the stated heights because of the different way of measuring. It complicates their purchasing procedures.

The International AMHA community wants AMHA to measure from the TOTW, and KEEP the 34” limit. If they do that, then the U.S. AMHA horses will match what they have, and they shouldn’t have to worry so much about importing ‘over-size’ AMHA horses. But, if AMHA were to change the 34” height standard, then although the measuring points might now match, the height standard would have changed, so the horses still aren’t the same. They would still be faced with rejecting fully papered U.S. based AMHA registered horses into their Registries. If the height limit was changed, there would then be a portion of the U.S. horses that would not be bought for importation since it’s official U.S. measurement is now over 34”. So, potentially, an International buyer would not be able to buy, import, and get papers in their country’s registry for an AMHA World Champion horse, as it might be ‘legally’ be 35” tall.

Additionally, even though an INDIVIDUAL horse won’t actually be any taller when you measure it from the TOTW, on a collective level, you do risk raising the overall height of horses being registered in an organization by raising the allowed height of the registry, even when changing the measuring point. This is because most likely they will want to raise the limit by enough to take in ALL the currently registered horses. Some will only be a half inch taller; others may be as much as two inches taller. So, where do you decide where the new limit will be? Do you raise it by the ‘average’ amount, or the upper amount? If you go with the ‘average’, you will have a significant number of horses who will lose their papers. If you raise it by the upper limit, then you have raised it higher than the average, so are in effect allowing the overall height of the registry to increase.

From my perspective, in AMHA, it seems that there is more reluctance to accept ‘raising’ the height limit above 34”. Again, from my viewpoint, it seem s that AMHA ‘only’ people are wanting to produce the smaller equines, so even the appearance of making the horses bigger is less acceptable. The 34” mark is almost sacred, so tampering with that is not taken too well.

In both AMHA & AMHR, the stated goal of the organizations is to breed the smallest, correct horse, so keeping the height limits in place, even when the measurement is changed to the TOTW, does ‘down-size’ the upper limit for animals in the registry. Some will see this as a positive change, in line with the stated goals of the organizations, so will have no problem with it. This is especially true of those that aren’t raising horses that ‘push the limits’ to begin with; it won’t be a problem with their breeding programs.

But, there are some breeders who are pushing the upper limits on nearly all of their animals (regardless of which organization they support), or have a prominent stallion in their program that is at the upper limits and tends to produce larger offspring. These breeders will be forced to make some changes unless the height limits are raised. These people will want the height raised to minimize the impact to them, rather than use the ‘Grandfathering’ method to resolve the conflict.

I guess what I am trying to say is that even though they are different organizations and neither one has consider the other at all, it doesn’t hurt to keep them in the back of your mind when making decisions.

I have some additional comments, about ‘Grandfathering’, but will start a different reply for that subject…


----------



## R3 (Jul 14, 2010)

The other consideration is ‘Grandfathering’. I believe, to the majority of members and horses, this would be a non-issue. First off, only a percentage of the currently registered horses will be affected, only those who actually measure ‘over’ the limit when measured at the TOTW. So, that should only affect horses that are taller than 32.5” to 34” when measured at the LHOTM. Most horses shorter than that will not be affected, so won’t have to be ‘grandfathered’.

And, ‘grandfathering’ will only really have an impact on the show-ring, not the breeding shed, so ‘issues’ only arise for horses that are shown, again reducing the size of the ‘problem’, and reducing the number of members who are ‘affected’ by the ‘Grandfathering’. So, in reality, the ‘problem’ shouldn’t really be that great.

Even in the show-ring, how much of an impact will it really make? I see no reason for Grandfathering to affect any horse that measures below 38” at the TOTW. I am not sure how the current proposal being discussed is written, but for a horse show, I think ALL horses should be measured at the TOTW. If a horse measures 38” or less, it goes into the appropriate height class. It wouldn’t matter what size the horse ‘used’ to be, based on a LHOTM measurement, they would all go with the ‘new’ measurement.

The ONLY exceptions would be those that measure over 38” at the TOTW. Those horses would be subject to a second measurement at the LHOTM. If the horse measured 38” or less, then they would be allowed to show in the tallest division. If they exceeded 38”, they would not be allowed to show.

Yes, this would mean that there would be some horses showing in the taller division that are taller than some others, but this has always been true to some extent. As it is now, at many shows there are classes that are only offered in 38” and under, so if you have a 30” horse, you can potentially be showing against horses 8” taller than yours. Once you get to National level shows, there are more divisions, so at the ‘worst case scenario’, the taller division, 34”-38”, you might end up with a 5 to 6 inch difference in the heights, from ‘true’ (TOTW) 34” to those whose TOTW measurement is 39” or 39.5” (depending on much taller they were than their LHOTM measurement). This is still less than what some of the smaller horses currently have to contend with when lumped in a 38” and under class.

The other thing about ‘Grandfathering’ is that eventually, horses covered by it will leave the show-ring, even before they die off, and the ‘problem’ will go away completely. It will not affect the registry forever. Changing the height limits is a permanent thing.

Another point of contention for raising the height limit would be the decision on how much to raise it, one inch? two inches? one and a half? The one inch additional height might not be enough to take in all of the currently registered horses, so what happens to them? Will those horses lose their papers? Two inches is probably too much, so you end up letting the horses be taller and still have papers. But, a half inch increment doesn’t make sense… Who is going to decide?

I haven’t seen the proposal, but it would need to be worded very specifically and spell out all the various scenarios, about exactly how high the new limit would be (if that was the option chosen) and what to do with the horses currently registered that didn’t meet the new limits. Also, what would be done with the size ‘splits’ currently in place? Would it change the current size break-off for ‘under’ and ‘over’ divisions?

Personally, I fully support changing the way Miniature horses are measured (for AMHR and AMHA), to the top or highest point of the withers, and keeping the current height limitations with a Grandfathering provision for any horse that doesn’t measure under the limit by the TOTW, but still meets it at the LHOTM. However, there would need to be enough advance notice, or a delay in the implementation to allow Breeders to adjust their programs. Other than the concern about the relatively small number of Grandfathered horses temporarily showing in the tallest division, I don’t see any real ‘down side’ to it, given that there is enough time given for people to anticipate the change.


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (Jul 14, 2010)

muffntuf said:


> So Leia, how would you handle all the miniatures who will measure out of the registry if we hold to the 38" and under and do not hold an ASPC paper?


That is why I would not be in favor of such a proposal unless it also included adjusting the height limits based on averaged data such as Ruffian was proposing collecting. It _wouldn't_ be fair, not fair at all, and I wouldn't support it.

I own only performance geldings, don't breed, and understand exactly how heartbreaking that would be for the many small-time owners out there who don't have a whole herd to "just choose another horse" from. What do you do when an arbitrary rule change means your best friend is suddenly "useless?" Kody could still show but would almost certainly measure into the over division and there is no way he'd be competitive there so it's not like this doesn't affect me too.



RhineStone said:


> And if the breed associations do decide to eliminate horses from the registry, they can all come over to the ADS events and play!


Unfortunately they can't!



You know how bad the situation is for small ponies in the ADS and most 37.5-38" miniatures this would affect would also measure over the 39" VSE limit. It happened here to one large B mini and it broke his owners' hearts as he can no longer honestly be used for CDE competition although he is still (currently) well within AMHR B division limits and can show there.

I don't know what the perfect answer is. I can only imagine how much work it would be and how expensive for everyone from the registry to our local clubs to recreate our current A and B divisions as an A (maybe 33" at the withers and under?), B (33"-36" at the withers) and C (36-39" at the withers?) divisions. The idea is sort of attractive though because that way the smaller driving horses that currently can't compete well in R shows would have a place (bringing in more revenue) and the large A/small B horses wouldn't have to keep competing with the strongly ASPC-bred ponies who are in a whole different league. The on-the-edge B horses would not only retain their papers but keep right on showing in their own division including the other larger B horses who would no longer have to worry about measuring out either.

I know, I know, there's a million problems with that but it was just a thought. No matter what, I think we'd HAVE to adjust the height limits to compensate for the apparent "height change" from measuring at the withers. No matter what you do it's going to effect someone but as one poster said we have to look at what's best for the breed and fairest to the majority. Somebody somewhere will measure out, but then again another horse who measured out before may now measure in. There'd have to be provisions for that as well!

Leia

Edited to add: I read R3's very thoughtful reply after posting and there's a lot of good points in there. That "grandfathering at the top of the height limit" thing would have to be applied to the 34" split as well as the 38" limit I think, but it could work.


----------



## Devon (Jul 14, 2010)

hobbyhorse23 said:


> I own only performance geldings, don't breed, and understand exactly how heartbreaking that would be for the many small-time owners out there who don't have a whole herd to "just choose another horse" from. *What do you do when an arbitrary rule change means your best friend is suddenly "useless?" *Kody could still show but would almost certainly measure into the over division and there is no way he'd be competitive there so it's not like this doesn't affect me too.


My fear exactly and imagine Kody was currently 36 not 33

This is something we would have to deal with; This is a 36" horse .. What do you think he would be at the top of that huge wither/Where would you call the top of that? This will decrease our breed size drastically. This is a small horse not pushing any limit at all yet horses taller then him with a smaller wither would be allowed in.


----------



## Belinda (Jul 14, 2010)

To Answer several of you , Yes I submitted this proposal for another person . I guess my shoulders are bigger LOL !!! As you all Know I am also a breeder of ASPC -AMHR -AMHA -ASPC/AMHR horses.. So yes it will effect me also.. But I agree with many the time has come to measure our horses as the rest of the equine world does. My Proposal reads as this. I am very open to suggestions , and change.. Just let's please stay on track and be civil !!!! This proposal was not done to hurt anyone , I want this to be the Members proposal,I want it to work for everyone, So I am very open to rework this so that it works for all concerned.. 





 

*VI Part 7 C Page 103*

* With Animal in position , the head in the normal position. Measure the vertical distance from the top of the wither to the measuring surface. All horses registered prior to 2011 will still be measured at the last hair of the mane for Showing. *


----------



## Devon (Jul 14, 2010)

Belinda said:


> *VI Part 7 C Page 103*
> 
> * With Animal in position , the head in the normal position. Measure the vertical distance from the top of the wither to the measuring surface. All horses registered prior to 2011 will still be measured at the last hair of the mane for Showing. *[/size]


I still don't know how I feel about this all together BUT if all the work and money everyone has put into current breeding stock is allowed to be shown as stated in this proposal then I will buy smaller horses and start my breeding program differantly; MY biggest here is 36.5" anyways and cannot sire foals so as long as he shows I'll be happy.


----------



## Belinda (Jul 14, 2010)

And to Devon ,

Your horse under the way this is written would still be able to show as a AMHR horse.. No one is trying to kick anyone out of the Registry . Take a deep breath , it will all work out..


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 14, 2010)

Belinda said:


> [
> 
> *VI Part 7 C Page 103*
> 
> * With Animal in position , the head in the normal position. Measure the vertical distance from the top of the wither to the measuring surface. All horses registered prior to 2011 will still be measured at the last hair of the mane for Showing. *[/size]



Well seeing it as written it totally works for me personally. As long as I can show my honest 38 inch aged mare which this proposalclearly covers.. then I am all for picking a day and saying from this day on it will be this way.

This saves geldings like Devons allows those that are currently showing or eligiable to show to keep showing and giving us a great starting point to move foward.

It seems pretty simple and straight forward-


----------



## RhineStone (Jul 14, 2010)

hobbyhorse23 said:


> Unfortunately they can't!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not to hijack the thread, but to clarify...the ADS is more than just CDEs. Yes, I know that is what is prominent in the NW, but there are other forms of driving where the ADS welcomes any size horses!

I also see the ADS in the future dealing fairly with the small ponies having to carry a groom in CDEs. If there is enough people that want it, it will come. Just like if (hopefully) there are enough people that want horses measured at the withers, it will come!


----------



## ohmt (Jul 14, 2010)

I like the proposal Belinda! I do think that it should start with horses born 2012 and later, not 2011 since many breeders will need to do a bit of tweeking in their breeding programs. Mares are already bred for next year so the resulting foals of the B sized horses with high withers pushing them over 38", they need to be allowed measurement at the last hairs of the mane as well. I myself just bought a 34" reserve national grand champion stallion and bred him to 6 of my mares. I only breed for 34" and under horses, so I may need to rethink my use of him. He is 36" at the top of his withers. If his foals end up tall A going by last hair of the mane, but have his high withers, I'll have some problems! I do support the idea though. Keep us updated on its progress!


----------



## kaykay (Jul 14, 2010)

> VI Part 7 C Page 103With Animal in position , the head in the normal position. Measure the vertical distance from the top of the wither to the measuring surface. All horses registered prior to 2011 will still be measured at the last hair of the mane for Showing.


I really cant think of how this could work without changing the heights. Especially using 2011 is not at all realistic. That wont even let in the foals that people just bred.

I dont see what the big deal is about changing height divisions. Its still the same horse?? The horse is not actually any taller then it was measured at the last hair.

I just hate to see anything put through without firm knowledge of what will happen in the future or how it will be implemented and enforced.

I still remember when the directors of ASPC/AMHR passed the no hardshipping rule with barely any notice to the membership (went into affect almost immediately) which was clearly against what the members wanted. I had so many friends that were caught in that with mares they had already bred and then had unregistrable foals. I believe our own Mary Lou got caught in that one. I dont think the rule itself was bad but how it was implemented was horrible.

I have the same feeling about this one.

Okay Lavern where are ya?? Would love to hear Laverns opinion as she has a great B breeding program so she would definitely be affected.


----------



## R3 (Jul 14, 2010)

Belinda,

I fully support measuring in the way you are proposing. I personally think that your proposal could be 'tweaked' in two ways.

1. I would suggest measuring ALL horses as proposed at a show. But, if a horse doesn't measure under 38", and it was born before a certain date, then it would be re-measured, using the 'last hair of the mane' location. If it measured under 38" by that measurement, it would be allowed to show. If not, it could not show.

This to me is a better way, for two reasons. First, you will only have a height 'discrepency' (horses that are now 'taller' than the height division in which they entered) between animals in the tallest division., all other height divisions will be competing from the same playing field. Secondly, the Steward will not be constantly having to check the birth/registration date to decide 'how' to measure the horse. They would all be measured the same, they would only have to go to the 'last hair of the mane' for the horses that were over 38".

2. I would change the date from 2011 to some date further in the future, at the very earliest 2012. This would give breeders a chance to change their program to prepare for the change in measuring location. They may want to breed their mares to a different stallion. Too many mares have already been bred to foal in 2011 for the owners to make a change now.


----------



## horsehug (Jul 14, 2010)

While we are all being very civil, I just feel like stating my feeling on measurement.

I have never understood why it matters so much to people what other breeds think of the way we measure.

Does the way we measure make anyone not want to buy a miniature horse?

I guess it just has never happened to me. I am used to people falling in love with them no matter how they are measured....... horse people and newbies to the horse world alike.

I personally have always felt they are unique little equines and having certain things different about them makes them even more special! I am totally fine with measuring at the last hair of the mane. I've been doing it for 22 years now and never had a problem. And I tend to be completely honest in my measurements also. I am one who has turned in papers on a gorgeous AMHA mare who went over.

Maybe most people want to change it to the top of the withers. Not sure if that is so or if the ones who want it to stay the same just are not posting.

And I also abide by registry rules, so if it happens I'll abide by it. If the majority of members want it, so be it.

But I just wanted to say that I for one, am not for the change.

I've never once in 22 years had a problem of any kind based on the way I measure my minis!! I love that it is different from bigger horse breeds!

Susan O.

(Who many times in my life marches to the beat of a different drummer.)


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Jul 14, 2010)

Belinda said:


> To Answer several of you , Yes I submitted this proposal for another person . I guess my shoulders are bigger LOL !!! As you all Know I am also a breeder of ASPC -AMHR -AMHA -ASPC/AMHR horses.. So yes it will effect me also.. But I agree with many the time has come to measure our horses as the rest of the equine world does. My Proposal reads as this. I am very open to suggestions , and change.. Just let's please stay on track and be civil !!!! This proposal was not done to hurt anyone , I want this to be the Members proposal,I want it to work for everyone, So I am very open to rework this so that it works for all concerned..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Jul 14, 2010)

I do not support the proposal to change the method of measuring AMHR Miniature Horses so that it is the same as used in other pony and standard sized horse registries and associations. I believe keeping our current method, that is the same as the other Miniature Horse registries in the United States, is the proper route to take. There are two major Miniature Horse registries/associations in the United States and they both measure using the same method, simple as that. I don't believe any change is needed.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Jul 14, 2010)

alphahorses said:


> AMHA considers smaller horses to be of more value, NOT AMHR. There are a lot of us who have no interest in raising smaller horses and intentionally breed for "B" size. To some, 30" is a perfect horse. To me, 37-38" is perfect. That is the beauty of this registry - there is a place for everyone.


Well considering I raise only A size horses that are only AMHR registered as I cannot afford to do double I competely disagree with your statement. If that is the case then why the heck am I still in AMHR. I'm sure there are still ALOT of people still with the As and only do AMHR. Unless I see the registry giving special treatment to one paticular group I will stick with R. The miniature horse is suppose to be the smallest horse, plain and simple, should not be any need for raising heights. However, this proposal just needs to be looked at carefully, to try and make it fair for everyone. Altho I'm sure some won't be happy.

I don't see the huge fuss about having to grandfather in your older show horses. Its not like the stewards don't know how to measure from the last hair of the mane. It will still be the same way.

Again I still wish this will be put into affect for 2012, people have already bred there mares and may foal out too big of foals for this new measuring system.


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 14, 2010)

Folks also realise that when you sell horses into Europe that the horses are measured at the withers in order to be allowed to breed and be added into their stud book.





Having exported many horses into Europe, we are constantly ask for the regular AMHR/AMHA measurement and the "European Stud Book measurement". Again yes it does make a difference to overseas buyers who want to be able to breed their horses as allowed by European rules.


----------



## RhineStone (Jul 14, 2010)

Where it really DOES matter how your horse is measured is outside the mini world. If you are ONLY going to show your horse in mini breed shows, then who cares how it is measured. But when you show in...let's start with 4-H (our state show's driving classes are split by height, the smallest is "Ponies 38" and Under" and measured at the withers), then it becomes an issue. Say you have a reg. mini, and take it to your local open show where they too measure on the withers, and now it has to be a pony, but you were all set to show it in the 38" and Under Mini Halter class. Yes, you show your horse in whatever class it "fits" in, but the rest of the world is not going to follow how minis measure at the last hairs. ADS "adjusted" their height standard to 39" or 99 cm for VSEs to "account" for potential higher wither measurements, but still measure withers.

The rest of the world will take the breed's official height standard for designating mini classes, but not how they are measured. It is confusing for people, and for no good reason, at least that has ever been explained to me.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 14, 2010)

Belinda,

Why was this proposal brought to the committee? What is the reason the 'person' or you, thought it would benefit the AMHR registry? I would like to understand the reasoning.

I think if all of us understood the reasoning behind it, it would help instead of speculation(s).

Also in your humble opinion - what does it benefit the AMHR registry to go this route?

Thanks!


----------



## Yaddax3 (Jul 14, 2010)

Jacki Loomis said:


> I do not support the proposal to change the method of measuring AMHR Miniature Horses so that it is the same as used in other pony and standard sized horse registries and associations. I believe keeping our current method, that is the same as the other Miniature Horse registries in the United States, is the proper route to take. There are two major Miniature Horse registries/associations in the United States and they both measure using the same method, simple as that. I don't believe any change is needed.
> 
> Jacki Loomis
> 
> [email protected]


I'm with Jacki on this issue.

We're not breeders and, frankly, Belinda's proposal doesn't hurt us at all. I just believe in both the short- and long-term changing the way minis are measured will damage the registry and result in fewer horses and, as a result, less revenue.

What will be done to accommodate all the folks who don't have AMHR-ASPC double-registered minis but are breeding for that 36-38 inch mini under the current format? Do you really just tell them, "Oh, well. Too bad for you."


----------



## AshleyNicole (Jul 14, 2010)

Having a stallion that is at the borderline of 34" I am also not for the change. I do think that AMHR and AMHA often mirror each other and a lot of farms will be affected if AMHR and then AMHA decide to go ahead with this. I realize that you can't please everyone but I do think that this will affect a lot of farms ( more than I think most people may think especially the AMHR/ASPC breeders). I guess I'm with horsehug on this one. Personally I don't care how other horses are measured they are not a height registry like AMHA and AMHR is and are not affected if a horse measures a inch or two more at the withers than they would at the last hairs. I think that measuring at the withers should have been decided at the beginning of both organizations but since it wasn't I don't see where hurting owners breeding programs will get us. If this must happen I think raising the height limit on both the A and B sized horses would be the only way to be "fair". If people decided not to breed a borderline horse I think that it will cut out a good section of the gene pool which I don't think we need, it seems just from this post that that would be the direction some would take which I think would only hurt the breed. I think that we need to look at it from all sides and look at it as to how it will affect the overall breed in the long run. It's not just about how the horses are measured at a show. People breed for their next show horse so it will affect those horses grandfathered in as well because what use are they after their show career is over, you don't want to produce a oversized horse with a grandfathered horse. Anyway that's just my opinion for what it's worth, hope it makes sense as I'm pretty tired right now lol.

I too would like to know the benefits or the reasoning behind this proposal.May change my mind after I know that


----------



## sundaymom (Jul 14, 2010)

I'm not a sharer but more a lurker..lol. Learned more from this site then from any book or single person. Old and mind my own business, most times but had several thoughts from reading all the comments. Okay thats my intro..lol

Change is always hard and looking back is not going forward so...if wanting to do what is best for the promotion of the breed and not the individual, whay not think in terms of the best scenerio for everyone. Why keep working at this one bite at a time. AMHR has closed it's books and AMHA will also soon, so the oppurtunity is available in the next couple of years to start over fresh.

Thinking out loud...Why not go for a Miniature Horse breed label, instead of a height label? Any horese dna'd and registered AMHA and/or AMHR, after 2012, is and will always be an AMHA and/or AMHR miniature horse. Keep the height classifications for showing...keep the height limits with measuring at the top of wither...BUT allow any AMHA and or AMHR horse, registered after the books close, to retain their papers, no matter the height but with breeding papers only, for they are still miniature horses. This allows possiblities on a grand scale for promoting the breed, assisting those farms time to change programs without finacial loss who show or not and allows the public a wide range of miniature horses to choose from.

Every person on here likes different things about their horses looks, programs and abilites...the public is the same. A lot of miniature horses are sold to the public who never even bother to register them but want to buy a registerd horse..lol..look at all the horses sold who never get papers changed over. Some want a tiny pet, some a mini for the smaller kids to ride, others want a taller mini for the larger kids to ride, something to cart in or just for 4-h...and then some who just buy for the love of them and end up getting the show bug.

Most of the public already excepts that it is a breed...when asking about them or searching for one they don't ask for the 34" horse or the 38" horse...they search for the Miniature Horse.

Hope I haven't upset anyone to have said all this. Be back next year with another comment..lol!


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 14, 2010)

I think something along those lines makes sense and is what the powers that be are thinking. Unless I am grossly mistaken. You should post more often, those are good thoughts to consider in my opinion.


----------



## Belinda (Jul 14, 2010)

sundaymom said:


> Thinking out loud...Why not go for a Miniature Horse breed label, instead of a height label? Any horese dna'd and registered AMHA and/or AMHR, after 2012, is and will always be an AMHA and/or AMHR miniature horse. Keep the height classifications for showing...keep the height limits with measuring at the top of wither...BUT allow any AMHA and or AMHR horse, registered after the books close, to retain their papers, no matter the height but with breeding papers only, for they are still miniature horses. This allows possiblities on a grand scale for promoting the breed, assisting those farms time to change programs without finacial loss who show or not and allows the public a wide range of miniature horses to choose from.
> 
> Most of the public already excepts that it is a breed...when asking about them or searching for one they don't ask for the 34" horse or the 38" horse...they search for the Miniature Horse.
> 
> Hope I haven't upset anyone to have said all this. Be back next year with another comment..lol!


Hey , there is lots you said I like !! Sure gives us more food for thought ! These are the kind of things I wanted to see with this topic. Everyone sharing ideas and hopefully coming up with something that can work.. I totally understood going into this that some would like it , some would NOT , and some would have to take a while and think about it 



 , and all of those things are just fine with me .. But really there have been many good idea's put into this , 

 

 Trace to answer your question why this was submitted to the committee , It was not ! A couple personal Friends , have talked about this for sometime with me and several other folks, We started to put this in last year but it got put on the back burner.. No need to speculate about anything to do with this proposal there is NO HIDDEN AGENDA .. Just trying to bring something to light that lots of folks have wanted for some time.. 





 

 Actually the folks from Europe , Australia and many other country's measure their Miniatures at the wither, and when buying from the USA , have to get the sellers to measure the mini's at the wither and they have to be under 34" or 38" before they will purchse them and that is Fact..Just one more reason for trying to work this out also.. 

 

 I knew it would have pro's and con's , but really was hoping all those folks that have wanted it so long would help in getting this worked out so it would be good for all .. 

 

 

 Now what I am going to say might make some upset , but it is just the truth of the matter !!The original intent of the B division when it was created by Bob Huston along with input from my father with Bob , was a place for those Miniature Horses that went over 34"... 

 

 And like everything I sure it was not in their fore sight to see that 20 some odd years later , we would be using that division for our Small shetlands .. AND before you all throw Darts at me , I show and raise as many as anyone !!!but Folks some of this is out of control with the size of these B Horses, I get calls daily From Folks about how much 38" has grown !! Now we can blame lots of things, from the people measuring , the folks owning them , the trainers , and on and on, I just feel like if we measured like the rest of the Equine world measures we would be better off. 

 

 Folks these double reg. horses can still be shown as Shetlands , just as several have pointed out , We are not taking anything away from anyone .. Is it really that bad to have to show your pony as Shetland instead of a Mini.. ? And I know some will say they are to small to compete, NOPE not so , I am showing a 34" ( at the top of the wither) Classic Stallion right now , NO he CAN NOT show as a Mini because he only shetland reg. and only a yearling ... But you know he has won and won Grands over those 40 and 42" ponies, *So the way I Look at a Good horse is a Good horse no matter what the size.. *








 

 So anyway good idea's from everyone !


----------



## kaykay (Jul 14, 2010)

> Folks these double reg. horses can still be shown as Shetlands , just as several have pointed out , We are not taking anything away from anyone .. Is it really that bad to have to show your pony as Shetland instead of a Mini..


Belinda for folks like you and I that have the ASPC/AMHR its not that big of a deal because as you said we can show shetland and they wont suddenly turn into grade horses.

But there are a number of farms that do breed AMHR B horses that are not ASPC registered. This could do those farms in. Thats why as I said previously I would love to hear from people like Lavern that have a lot of those horses, and how they feel about it.

And seriously, measuring at the withers vs the last mane hair is not going to stop people from putting in oversize horses. It wont make any difference at all to stop cheaters.

Another thing that bothers me is we are just now getting people to breed minis with proper withers. I do feel a con to this is people will purposely breed for mutton withered horses so that they measure smaller



I cant tell you how many people that have only owned miniatures come to my farm and ask me what that "hump" is on my ponies. Yep they are asking about the withers.

Again I am not opposed to measuring at the withers but I am opposed to making a lot of AMHR horses grade horses just because some want to change how we measure.

Kay


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 14, 2010)

Speaking of the Double AMHR/ASPC Shetland breeders/owners/exhibitors, many have spent years putting their programs together. And yes they can compete at either the R or ASPC shows, they have to decide which per show, they cannot show both R and ASPC at the same show.

Last year at an Area VI Show, the club was able to offer a hefty payout prize for halter in both AMHR and ASPC, and driving. The exhibitor had to choose which, R or ASPC, they would show the animal in.

In the AMHR classes and double registered equine won. Being one of the representing sponsors, I was first aghast at the equine in the class, it clearly towered over the other B minis in the class. I approached the steward, the equine was showing as a B Miniature. The Steward measured it like a mini, and it was just a hair (no pun intended) under 38").

When I went to present the trophy and prize money to the exhibitor, I pulled up another B size mini, who was only AMHR registered. The two were measured the same height. And put together, they were the same height. The difference, the AMHR/ASPC had a more dainty leg, more leg on the inseam, and was a bit more trim around the barrel. The Equine won within the parameters of the class.

I see nothing wrong with smaller shetlands being measured into the AMHR side of the registry and showing there.

I see nothing wrong with the breeders who have built their programs around the double registration.

I do however see issues with taking this new measurement route. Many farms that raise B size miniatures, smaller shetlands and ones that have built their programs around the AMHR/ASPC double registration will take years to re-build their programs.

This seems like a really negative impact on our registry to switch gears like this.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 14, 2010)

I can say that if I am able to make it to convention (I so need a vacation without the family) I will be voting this down as it reads (sorry Belinda!). I'm fine with measuring at the withers but I am not ok with maintaining our current height limits or starting this new rule next year. We will be doing a huge disservice to those who have AMHR B only breeding stock. I'm not ok with the mentality of "well too bad they aren't ASPC/AMHR".

I guess I'm just tired of everyone taking from someone else is all (blame it on our presidency I guess). IF we do this, it needs to benefit EVERYONE and exclude NO ONE.


----------



## jeniemac (Jul 14, 2010)

My opinion on the measuring is to leave it alone. "If it's not broke ,don"t fix it".. The way of meauring a "mini" isn't broke..

The way of measuring a "mini/shetland needs to be adressed.

If a mini/shetland is at a mini show it should be measured in by the miniature club rules. If at a shetland show ..measure in by the rules of the shetland club.

By crossing miniatures with shetlands we have created a whole *seprate breed**. *

There were miniatures, then there were shetlands, now there are mini / shetlands. As beautiful as the m/s are they are not either if you get right down to it. They are their own breed.They should have their own classes or add another wing to the ASPC/AMHR for these crosses. Call it MiniShet... AMSC

or

Add several classes to the miniature shows to accomidate the m/s crosses. Call it OPEN MODERN MINIATURE OVER AND UNDER. As it seems that our miniatures are destain to move forward with the cross breeding.

I personally love the looks of the crosses but I do not want to own one. I can achieve the same look with mini to mini breeding it will just take longer and I am a patient person.

JUST MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT


----------



## Itsy Bitsy Acres (Jul 14, 2010)

Jacki Loomis said:


> I do not support the proposal to change the method of measuring AMHR Miniature Horses so that it is the same as used in other pony and standard sized horse registries and associations. I believe keeping our current method, that is the same as the other Miniature Horse registries in the United States, is the proper route to take. There are two major Miniature Horse registries/associations in the United States and they both measure using the same method, simple as that. I don't believe any change is needed.
> 
> Jacki Loomis
> 
> [email protected]


At first glance I personally thought this would be a great idea. However, with that being said I slept on it an now agree with your post and feel I would be against the rule change. With our current measurement practice of measuring by the last hairs on the mane, it gives an actual point of location for the stewards to measure. Doing things by the proposal, even though it states the top of the withers, still leaves a little playing room for the stewards to measure, making it more likely that we will get different measurements by different stewards, depending on the horse and in some cases the measurement may be drastic. I am not in this position, but I feel it would make a difference for people with the bigger minis. I have been in the Quarter, and Paint horse world for 20+ years.....for all of those that have also dealt with bigger horses, how many times have you gone to look at a horse for purchase that was suppose to be 16 hands, you get there and its only 15.2. This was not (well most of the time) due to the owners or sellers being dishonest, but because measuring this way does not give an exact location to measure as our current way of measuring does. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Jul 14, 2010)

JWC sr. said:


> Folks also realise that when you sell horses into Europe that the horses are measured at the withers in order to be allowed to breed and be added into their stud book.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


John, with all due respect I do not know of many of us small farms that sell to Europe.

I am so against this proposal and intend on going to Convention to cast my vote against it. I encourage those that feel the same way to try to attend.


----------



## Devon (Jul 14, 2010)

Sigh. Edited because I need to stand back a bit


----------



## LaVern (Jul 14, 2010)

I am for measuring at the withers. I think it is much more accurate. The rules can be worked out and I know that no one wants to eliminate any registered horses.


----------



## JWC sr. (Jul 14, 2010)

To be completely honest, whichever way the vote goes on this I am personally fine with it. We will adjust our breeding program accordingly. And hopefully continue to be sucessful in the show ring.

Also to address a couple of other points that have been mentioned:

Fran, no offence taken what so ever, the European market is one that is a thriving one and you might want to consider exploring it, we have sent 25 or so over in the last several years and it is a good market.

Paticurily now that the Euro exchanges with teh dollar are in their favor. Small farm or big farm quality will sell, so if you have soem put them out there for those folks to see. I understand both of the registries are working on promotion over there and that should prove interesting to say the least, the Europeans love American Shetlands and Mini's which is a good thing for folks here.

This controversy about shetlands, shetland crosses and "true miniatures" is really worn out, Folks do some homework and see where the lineage of your horses come from. The vast majority of them came from shetlands and the rest were mainly grade horses.


----------



## Devon (Jul 14, 2010)




----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 14, 2010)

> This controversy about shetlands, shetland crosses and "true miniatures" is really worn out, Folks do some homework and see where the lineage of your horses come from. The vast majority of them came from shetlands and the rest were mainly grade horses.


Just HAVE to reply to this one.



Yes, they very likely DID "come from shetlands, and grades"...of course they did...so did every OTHER breed BEGIN with an idea, and a bunch of grade horses or crossbreds. Go tell a quarterhorse breeder that because you have a fast grade mare, she and her foals should be _registered as quarterhorses_ "because that is where the quarterhorse's liniage came from".


----------



## LaVern (Jul 14, 2010)

Sue_C. said:


> Just HAVE to reply to this one.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they very likely DID "come from shetlands, and grades"...of course they did...so did every OTHER breed BEGIN with an idea, and a bunch of grade horses or crossbreds. Go tell a quarterhorse breeder that because you have a fast grade mare, she and her foals should be _registered as quarterhorses_ "because that is where the quarterhorse's liniage came from".


----------



## Matt73 (Jul 14, 2010)

Haven't read most of the posts. But I'm all for measuring at the withers like _normal_


----------



## LaVern (Jul 14, 2010)

Some how I did something wrong and put my name on someone else's post. (the last one) I am sorry.

I was just going to add that it was not so many years ago that we changed the way we measured horses for ÅMHR show. You used to be able to show A with a 331/2 inch yearling. Any age under 34 was shown as an A. They got it figured out.

Also wanted to add that 34 and 38 are just some numbers that people decided on. They are not written in stone. I remember Lowell telling me that he voted for 36 inches at the withers for AMHA when it started.


----------



## Sandee (Jul 14, 2010)

Belinda said:


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


WHOA there! The reason that these under Shetlands are in AMHR is that they CAN"T compete with the Shetlands!! It's the same for them that everyone complains about with a 28 or 30" competing against a 34" horse. Just because they came from Shetland stock doesn't mean they can compete against a taller horse. OH hey, it just hit me NO ONE is really talking about competing in anything but HALTER! I forgot most people don't think performance is worth doing!


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 14, 2010)

JWC sr. said:


> To be completely honest, whichever way the vote goes on this I am personally fine with it. We will adjust our breeding program accordingly. And hopefully continue to be sucessful in the show ring.
> 
> Also to address a couple of other points that have been mentioned:
> 
> ...


I agree and many of these unknown great grand dams and stallions can probably be traced back to the US pit ponies that were being used up until the 1970's. As well as those shetlands whose papers were thrown away, because someone didn't want to have "shetland" on their paperwork.


----------



## Belinda (Jul 14, 2010)

Sandee said:


> WHOA there! The reason that these under Shetlands are in AMHR is that they CAN"T compete with the Shetlands!! It's the same for them that everyone complains about with a 28 or 30" competing against a 34" horse. Just because they came from Shetland stock doesn't mean they can compete against a taller horse. OH hey, it just hit me NO ONE is really talking about competing in anything but HALTER! I forgot most people don't think performance is worth doing!



Sandee,

With all due respect , I think you mis read my post !! I said that small horses *CAN COMPETE WITH TALLER ONES.*. I have shown many small under 38" Shetlands at Congress and Won Grand with them over lots taller horses.. *Again I say a Good Horse is a Good Horse no Matter what size they are !!!* And you are right just because they have shetland papers does not mean they are all that and sliced bread !! Some can not compete Mini or Shetland .. As the same holds true for Mini's .. Again , I love them all big and little , I have them all , I show them all .. LOL !!! Gosh sounds like I need a LIFE !!!








Also I do care about Performance horses as I myself have had many Driving horses , My last one was my Classic Stallion who was a Performance Pony of the Year..





I do hope lots of you folks do come to Convention this year , It is what we need in our Assoc.. to get people involved and not let just a select few that come to Convention be the only ones voting on very important issues..

Hey Cairn I still LOVE you



NO matter how you Vote !!!



As I have said several times already in this thread , this is not about me or what I want , it is about what many members want ..





And Lavern , I am glad you agree, I know you raise some very nice A & B mini's and lots of them..


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 14, 2010)

Oh good! Glad you still love me even though we disagree! : ).

I do have to ask, why are we so deeply in bed with 34" and 38"?


----------



## Devon (Jul 14, 2010)

txminipinto said:


> I do have to ask, why are we so deeply in bed with 34" and 38"?


Who knows LOL I really wish there were some ASPC shows in the area that etleast 1 pony would attend ; I would love to show pony



AMHR & Height stresses me out!


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 14, 2010)

> OH hey, it just hit me NO ONE is really talking about competing in anything but HALTER! I forgot most people don't think performance is worth doing!


Me, I am all about performance...I could care less about halter. I think breeding for perfect conformation is great, but without the mind and athletisism to do anything with that perfect body, it is useless to me.



> I do have to ask, why are we so deeply in bed with 34" and 38"?


I guess because "that's the way it's always been"?





I guess I see this from a fresher, more open perspective because not having sanctioned shows available here, our horses here have to compete in open shows, using regular Equine Canadian driving rules. (Basically very similar to the ADS rules.)

Even at our "Miniature Horse Shows, persay...we have all horses compete together, rather than break the classes up into 2 or 4 inch intervals. The absolute winningest horse I have ever had, was my former stallion, who stands 30". He consistantly beat "B" sized horses in halter, pleasure driving, obstacle and even...games! WHY everyone gets all hot and bothered over an inch or two amazes me...really...it truly does. I recently competed with my 33.50 mare at a local combined driving show, where she placed fourth. That was forth place..._of the show_...combined dressage, cones, and a 6.6Km marathon...and as the only mini there, she competed in the regular pony class. That means she placed forth out of the ten ponies, that except for one 12hh pony, were 13.2hh and up. And YOU worry about an inch...or even two?


----------



## Minimor (Jul 15, 2010)

> but Folks some of this is out of control with the size of these B Horses, I get calls daily From Folks about how much 38" has grown !! Now we can blame lots of things, from the people measuring , the folks owning them , the trainers , and on and on, I just feel like if we measured like the rest of the Equine world measures we would be better off.


 Well, I guess it could also be commented on how much 34" has grown. There are small ponies competing as Minis, and there are 36" Minis competing in the under 34" division. For some reason, though, that seems to be okay....perhaps because those ones are not so likely to be registered Shetlands?
If there is suddenly this major concern about doing something about oversize horses being shown then the concern should be about both size divisions, Over and Under, not just the Over division. So, if you want to clean this up, why not crack down on measuring practices--enforcing the rules regarding stance of horse, actions of handler, pressing down on the measure stick etc etc etc instead of coming up with a rule that will eliminate the 37" to 38" at-the-last-mane-hair horses. Even with measuring at the withers, if someone wants to take an oversize horse and stand him spraddle legged and all stretched out, chances are they're going to fit him into the size limit too. You're going to be surprised at how tall 38" at-the-withers is too.



> Folks these double reg. horses can still be shown as Shetlands , just as several have pointed out , We are not taking anything away from anyone .. Is it really that bad to have to show your pony as Shetland instead of a Mini.. ?


 Well, in the first place you are taking Mini papers away from foals that would normally be able to have them under the current rules....foals that are born to parents that are registered AMHR as well as ASPC....foals from several generations of ASPC/AMHR horses. Is a horse that is registered both AMHR and ASPC more Shetland than Miniature if it comes from 4 or 5 generations of registered ASPC/AMHR horses? The 40" ponies that would be AMHR registered may be competitive as a pony, but that does depend on the pony--truth is there are quite a number of ASPC/AMHR horses that are much more competitive as a Mini than as a pony. Some of them look much more Mini than pony, and some of them would be lacking the style and/or movement that it takes to win in good pony competition. (And I am NOT saying that Minis lack style or movement, but judges as a rule do count movement a lot less in Minis than they do in ponies.)
This rule change will in no way affect me--I am not going to be breeding any Minis and probably won't even be showing many of them, so whichever way it goes it makes no difference to me personally. But, if I were able to go to Convention and vote on this rule I would vote AGAINST it. I am totally opposed to it as it stands. I am all for measuring at the top of the wither, but totally opposed to the height limit not being adjusted to allow for withers on the horse.

I too think it is unfair if a new rule just instantly eliminates the breeding programs of some farms (and I believe this one would do that very thing). What concerns me is the fact that similar things have been done before—such as the closing of hardshipping to unregistered horses; that was done with so little notice it left some people with crossbred horses that couldn’t be registered because they weren’t yet old enough to be hardshipped in—very disappointing, I’m sure, when people were purposefully breeding these horses to add into the registry. At least with AMHA, plenty of notice has been given so breeders know that beyond a certain date their unregistered foals won’t be able to get into the registry. And I agree with Fran—if certain people want this rule to pass, it will pass. I wouldn’t say this rule favors AMHA exactly, but it does favor those who want to shut ASPC out of the AMHR registry.



> Add several classes to the miniature shows to accomidate the m/s crosses. Call it OPEN MODERN MINIATURE OVER AND UNDER. As it seems that our miniatures are destain to move forward with the cross breeding.


 jeniemac--they are not "crosses" in many cases--they are Shetlands that happen to be the right size to also be registered as Miniatures. They are double registered, not "crosses", though of course there are people that are breeding an AMHR horse to an AMHR/ASPC horse, so the resulting foal is AMHR as well as half Shetland.
Honestly, if this rule passes as is, there are going to be a lot of hard feelings in the registry--I can see that coming. I will be deeply disappointed, and feel really bad for those who will actually be affected by this rule change.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Jul 15, 2010)

Minimor said:


> I too think it is unfair if a new rule just instantly eliminates the breeding programs of some farms (and I believe this one would do that very thing).


I agree, I also think that this will hurt the small farm more than the larger ones. Many people have taken years to build their breeding programs and it is not so easy to adjust for a small farm.

I also think that if you have A sized double registered horses you should watch out, if this passes in AMHR I bet it will come up again in AMHA


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 15, 2010)

AshleyNicole said:


> I agree, I also think that this will hurt the small farm more than the larger ones. Many people have taken years to build their breeding programs and it is not so easy to adjust for a small farm.
> 
> I also think that if you have A sized double registered horses you should watch out, if this passes in AMHR I bet it will come up again in AMHA


I HOPE it comes up in AMHA. Again, it all boils down to if you are trying to follow the standard and breed the "smallest possible correctly proportioned horse" or if you are trying to breed the TALLEST horse you can possibly register. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST TALLER HORSES. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT, BY ALL MEANS BREED THEM. JUST QUIT PRETENDING THEY ARE MINIATURES!

 

Thank you Belinda for proposing this. 



 I think it could use some tweaking, but it is a step in the right direction. As John said (paraphrasing of course), I can live with it as is if it passes, I can live with it with adjustments, or I can live with it if it fails.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 15, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> I HOPE it comes up in AMHA. Again, it all boils down to if you are trying to follow the standard and breed the "smallest possible correctly proportioned horse" or if you are trying to breed the TALLEST horse you can possibly register. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST TALLER HORSES. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT, BY ALL MEANS BREED THEM. JUST QUIT PRETENDING THEY ARE MINIATURES!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ummm........Just going to remind everyone that the ASPC was here first, they developed AMHR, and THEN AMHA came into being. Just sayin'.


----------



## Mellis815 (Jul 15, 2010)

Not to throw fuel onto a fire

, but GUYS COME ON! This isn't even a "rule" yet and there are slaps going back and forth.




Perhaps we should just relax...wait to see what comes of it, and then we can all unleash our feelings.

Rumors are just that...rumors


----------



## Minimor (Jul 15, 2010)

Honest to goodness, I get so tired of some people throwing up “the smallest horse is the best” and making snide comments that are directed toward those that own/breed/prefer the taller ones. We hear frequent complaints about how the smaller horse is supposed to win over the taller horse, according to the rules, yet frequently judges pin the taller horses over the smaller ones. I think perhaps some people overlook the complete wording in that particular rule, something to the effect of “all else being equal”. Sometimes—often even—all else isn’t equal, and that is why the taller horse wins over the smaller one. There’s more to it than just size…or at least there should be!

People talk about the smallest, most perfect horse, but they don’t see that the smallest most perfect horse might be 35” tall rather than 27” tall. For me small doesn’t automatically equal perfect and in fact I can’t think of many tiny ones that are closer to perfect than many taller ones are. I like to visualize them grown up to 15.2 hh size, and imagne how they would look if they were full size horses. Would they look like nice horses, or wouldn't they? Proportion problems would be much more obvious if the horse were 15.2! I am NOT knocking all smaller horses and/or their breeders, but there are still quite a number of people who are breeding for small and nothing else (just recently someone was raving to me about a wonderful, gorgeous stallion that she had booked her mares to--she hadn't seen the horse nor even any photos of him, he was gorgeous and perfect only because of his very small height. She didn't even know what his pedigree was. She isn't the only one out there that is like that.) I haven't encountered anyone that breeds simply for TALL. In most cases I hear something to the effect of "such and such stallion is really nice, but he's BIG" and they don't want to breed to BIG.

Songcatcher...I don't think most people are trying to breed the tallest horses that they can fit into the registry, I think they are trying to breed nice, well proportioned horses and those horses just happen to be tall.

I think that the Miniature breed would be in better shape today if people back when had not tried to downsize above all else--if they had bred for things other than small size and taken more time to downsize there would be fewer problems to deal with now.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 15, 2010)

"or if you are trying to breed the TALLEST horse you can possibly register. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST TALLER HORSES. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT, BY ALL MEANS BREED THEM. JUST QUIT PRETENDING THEY ARE MINIATURES!"

If they are 38" and under they are still miniature horses. I do not see where someone is trying to go over the 38" height limit.

I do however see a confirmation transformation on the AMHR/ASPC, by introducing a longer leaner leg and smaller barrel - but they are still making that height requirement.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Jul 15, 2010)

Minimor said:


> Songcatcher...I don't think most people are trying to breed the tallest horses that they can fit into the registry, I think they are trying to breed nice, well proportioned horses and those horses just happen to be tall.






thank you exactly my thoughts and btw under the current rule all of my horses do measure in.... I think if the rule changed then I may have a problem with one or two ( one being my main herd sire). I think that is the issue here for most that disagree with this change. It's not that we are trying to squeeze a oversize horse in we just want to make sure our current horses and their future offspring are able to compete in the show ring as well. I think that we could reach a compromise and I would have no problem with it.


----------



## Sandee (Jul 15, 2010)

Mellis815 said:


> Not to throw fuel onto a fire
> 
> , but GUYS COME ON! This isn't even a "rule" yet and there are slaps going back and forth.
> 
> ...


Not that I'm saying we should have a knock down drag out fight over this now but people should get worked up over it enough to get noticed. It's a lot better now than to wait until it's over and then cry or rage which would do no one any good.

As to the "perfect little horse" - UGH! Sorry, I don't belong to AMHA (that seems to be their banner saying). I also don't breed! I'm in this because I like to show. And with the way horses are selling and eveyone cutting back on breeding --we need to find some more like me that JUST WANT TO SHOW!! I'm too old and arthritic to do the big horses. Also the littler ones have a nicer temperment. I like to drive and do obstacle and even some hunter. I want a horse that "tries" his/her mightiest -and I have one; not that she always wins but she pleases me each and every time.

I also have one that's double registered ASPC/AMHR. He really can't compete against those big Shetlands and his only talent is driving. Come to think of it none of my horses get high ribbons in halter. But this guy would be out of a job if he could not have been registered in AMHR. As a gelding he would fit no-where as he has the Shetland high withers. I love the way he moves and it would be a shame if he and others like him had no place to show.

Until and unless the Association changes more rules this is a height registry and changing the way they measure won't make it anything else!! I still would vote NO.


----------



## Debby - LB (Jul 15, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> So I have heard there is a propsal in set to be discussed in Nov.. (AMHR) for measuring at the withers instead of the last mane hairs.
> 
> My understanding is that it would start in 2011- leaving all previous measurements as they stand with the last mane hairs and moving forward having them done at the withers.
> 
> ...


I think it's wonderful and wish it would pass in both registries. I always measure mine top of the wither anyway.


----------



## Lisa Strass (Jul 15, 2010)

R3,

You have brought up a very good point that I don't think most people understand. I've highlighted it below because I think you explained very well.







R3 said:


> Additionally, even though an INDIVIDUAL horse won’t actually be any taller when you measure it from the TOTW, *on a collective level, you do risk raising the overall height of horses being registered in an organization by raising the allowed height of the registry*, even when changing the measuring point. This is because most likely they will want to raise the limit by enough to take in ALL the currently registered horses. Some will only be a half inch taller; others may be as much as two inches taller. So, where do you decide where the new limit will be? Do you raise it by the ‘average’ amount, or the upper amount? If you go with the ‘average’, you will have a significant number of horses who will lose their papers. *If you raise it by the upper limit, then you have raised it higher than the average, so are in effect allowing the overall height of the registry to increase.*


----------



## Lisa Strass (Jul 15, 2010)

R3 said:


> Belinda,
> 
> I fully support measuring in the way you are proposing. I personally think that your proposal could be 'tweaked' in two ways.
> 
> ...


I could support the proposal with these two improvements.


----------



## stormy (Jul 15, 2010)

This constant arguement miniature horses came from Shetlands making them the "golden" ones so somehow they automatically have the RIGHT to be registered as Miniatures, to the exclusion of all other pony breeds, if they meet height standards is just plan crap in my opinion. Shetlands and Miniatures took differant paths a long time ago. Shetlands added Hackney and other high and hot breeds such as welsh ponies and grades also(behind the barn and not acknowledge but well known within the breed) where minis added POA, arab and other family friendly "horse for everyone" breeds. They became differant. Personally I think if you are accepting one breed of pony, all should be allowed...just my opinion...and actually I always wanted to breed down pasos to mini size, too late now! Would have been fun though!

That is not the point of this thread though. The point is why don't we measure like everyone else? There are many many ASPC/AMHR horses that would measure under 38" at the withers. How does 1" height reduction "exclude" the ASPC horses??? Shetlands were bred down to 38" and under why the heck would it be so hard to come down one more little inch?!? And having said that I have some AMHR only horses that would not measure in at the top of the withers, not just Shetlands will be impacted.

My one concern with changing the measuring system to the top of the withers is will this cause the breed as a whole to select against high withered horses? As a breeder selecting for performance and movement this would impact the beautiful free motion and long stride we have developed in the Miniature horse, would not want to see that lost to make the height division (any height division, not just the 38" maximum).

I also don't believe that somehow magically large horse breeders are going to accept the miniature any more then they do now because we decide to measure at the withers. Having measured 4H ponies for years believe me people did all kinds of things to get their horses measured in as ponies and measuring at the withers will not change that.

So I will wait and see, a lot bigger concerns in the world today...sure am not going to lose sleep over this!!





I do want to add though that I agree if this is implemented it should not be implemented overnight but over a number of years, horses born before a certain date would still be measured at the last hair and no horse born before that date would lose there papers or breeding privelages...would be tricky in the show ring for a while during the change over.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 15, 2010)

I don't think anyone is concerned about the ASPC/AMHR horses. They will always have some place to go. The concern is the honest 38" at the last hair AMHR only horse that will now measure out if they measure at the withers. It is those horses and those owners I am concerned about. I am at a loss why anyone would just shrug their shoulders and say "too bad" to those owners if this rule passes as it is written. It is blatantly unfair and is exactly the type of action that tickes people off and makes them leave our association.

If we are going to measure at the withers then we need to adjust our heights so that current horses are not suddenly excluded and left paperless. In this economy, the association needs to be doing all that it can to retain and bring in new members.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Jul 15, 2010)

Exactly, we had a R only filly who, had she had been born in 2011 if this rule where in effect would just be a unregistered horse. I can't see how that is fair at all.


----------



## Devon (Jul 15, 2010)

txminipinto said:


> I don't think anyone is concerned about the ASPC/AMHR horses. They will always have some place to go. The concern is the honest 38" at the last hair AMHR only horse that will now measure out if they measure at the withers. It is those horses and those owners I am concerned about. *I am at a loss why anyone would just shrug their shoulders and say "too bad" to those owners if this rule passes as it is written. It is blatantly unfair and is exactly the type of action that tickes people off and makes them leave our association.*
> 
> If we are going to measure at the withers then we need to adjust our heights so that current horses are not suddenly excluded and left paperless. In this economy, the association needs to be doing all that it can to retain and bring in new members.


Yea I really don't know either


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 15, 2010)

Well, I have read every post in this thread at least once, and some of them twice. It is clear that you will never make everyone happy. One person's definition of moving forward is another person's definition of moving back.

I am not going to go back and count how many times someone has basically said that their ASPC/AMHR (under 38 LHOTM but possibly 40 or more at TOTW) simply cannot compete with taller Shetlands or that their 38 LHOTM but over 38 TOTW cannot compete with the Show Ponies. Obviously, there are a lot of people that feel their horses are inferior and the only place they can compete is in AMHR.





Lots of people have said that a change would be unfair. Life is . . . .





Several have mentioned that they would be OK with changing the location of the measurement IF height requirements were adjusted in order to be FAIR. OK, so lets try to be fair to EVERYONE. SOME very high withered horses MAY measure as much as 3 inches taller TOTW than they would LHOTM. And of course it is a fact that when you breed two horses of equal height, you sometimes get a foal that is taller than EITHER parent. So, to make it FAIR, lets add another inch and say 42 inches TOTW. Now of course this a height registry, and it is not FAIR to exclude other horses/ponies that would measure in. At that height, we could even squeeze in a few Welsh, and that would vastly improve the gene pool.



It would also be attractive to more members and increase revenue for the registry. Hey, what about some of those smaller Thoroughbreds that can't compete on the track? Many of them are after all SMALLER than most Thoroughbreds and its not FAIR to them that they can't compete. Maybe we could take them in also so they could be competitive. I'm sure they would think that was very FAIR of us. Of course, we would have to raise the height limit a little more to accomodate them, but its just an arbitrary line anyway. Miniature simply means smaller than normal.

I think we've got to decide if we want to be FAIR to everyone, or if we want to improve the breed. SOME people here have clearly stated that they believe BIGGER IS BETTER. I DISAGREE! Have any of you read the book, _Justin Morgan Had A Horse_? The original Morgan horse was considered a runt and a cull by almost everyone except Justin Morgan. He eventually prooved he could out work, out pull, out ride, and out produce much larger horses. I am not going to sit back and accept that bigger is better.


----------



## Devon (Jul 15, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> Well, I have read every post in this thread at least once, and some of them twice. It is clear that you will never make everyone happy. One person's definition of moving forward is another person's definition of moving back.
> 
> I am not going to go back and count how many times someone has basically said that their ASPC/AMHR (under 38 LHOTM but possibly 40 or more at TOTW) simply cannot compete with taller Shetlands or that their 38 LHOTM but over 38 TOTW cannot compete with the Show Ponies. Obviously, there are a lot of people that feel their horses are inferior and the only place they can compete is in AMHR.
> 
> ...


On that note form your previous posts I gather you breed A size horses that will never measure out. I do not believe bigger is better but I did so happens to by B size horses last year and now I am to be penalized for it. I may be less passionate about the issue if I didn't love the B breeding stock I currently own and saved alot of money to buy/promote and show. I do not own one too big AMHR horse and don't push the limits there are no ASPC shows here and 2 of my Bs are AMHR only I didn't think to ask their wither measurement when I bought them. Now what do I breed them to A's I don't know that I would since one is going to finish 37".


----------



## JaniceZ (Jul 15, 2010)

> Thinking out loud...Why not go for a Miniature Horse breed label, instead of a height label? Any horese dna'd and registered AMHA and/or AMHR, after 2012, is and will always be an AMHA and/or AMHR miniature horse. Keep the height classifications for showing...keep the height limits with measuring at the top of wither...BUT allow any AMHA and or AMHR horse, registered after the books close, to retain their papers, no matter the height but with breeding papers only, for they are still miniature horses. This allows possiblities on a grand scale for promoting the breed, assisting those farms time to change programs without finacial loss who show or not and allows the public a wide range of miniature horses to choose from.





> 1. I would suggest measuring ALL horses as proposed at a show. But, if a horse doesn't measure under 38", and it was born before a certain date, then it would be re-measured, using the 'last hair of the mane' location. If it measured under 38" by that measurement, it would be allowed to show. If not, it could not show.
> This to me is a better way, for two reasons. First, you will only have a height 'discrepency' (horses that are now 'taller' than the height division in which they entered) between animals in the tallest division., all other height divisions will be competing from the same playing field. Secondly, the Steward will not be constantly having to check the birth/registration date to decide 'how' to measure the horse. They would all be measured the same, they would only have to go to the 'last hair of the mane' for the horses that were over 38".
> 
> 2. I would change the date from 2011 to some date further in the future, at the very earliest 2012. This would give breeders a chance to change their program to prepare for the change in measuring location. They may want to breed their mares to a different stallion. Too many mares have already been bred to foal in 2011 for the owners to make a change now.


Perhaps combine these two ideas? The registry could make it so that all horses are measured first at the top of the withers, and if they measure above 34/38' (or whatever they raise the standard to), and were born before the proposed date (2011), they could be remeasured at the last hairs of the mane, as stated above.

These horses that are already born and registered could still show. The registry could then create a 'breeding only division'. Horses in this division would be horses that are the ofspring of horses registered before the proposed date (2011), and grew over the height standards. These horses would not loose thier heritage or value as miniature horses since they could still be used for breeding. They could not be shown however, due to their height. This would create incentive for breeders to breed for horses within the height range, rather then continuing to breed horses that are above 38inches (or whatever the standards are raised to) at the withers.

This division could also be opened up to other horses that outgrow thier papers. Aslong as both parents are registered, if the resulting baby outgrows the 38' height range, the baby would not be considered grade, but rather a miniature without showing rights?

I think adding this division would not only help with the problems concerning changing the point of measurement, but could be a step in becoming a BREED rather then a HEIGHT REGISTRY.

Just my thoughts.....

Please ignore my awful spelling.


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 15, 2010)

Devon said:


> On that note form your previous posts I gather you breed A size horses that will never measure out. I do not believe bigger is better but I did so happens to by B size horses last year and now I am to be penalized for it. I may be less passionate about the issue if I didn't love the B breeding stock I currently own and saved alot of money to buy/promote and show. I do not own one too big AMHR horse and don't push the limits there are no ASPC shows here and 2 of my Bs are AMHR only I didn't think to ask their wither measurement when I bought them. Now what do I breed them to A's I don't know that I would since one is going to finish 37".


All of the "A"s I currently own would easily measure under 34 at the withers, but could easily produce foals that would go over. It happens, and I am OK with that. I have previously owned "A" horses that would have gone over if measured at the withers, and I would have been OK with passing this rule then. It would have improved the breed (IMO). That is just part of the pitfalls of breeding a height registry.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 15, 2010)

txminipinto said:


> If we are going to measure at the withers then we need to adjust our heights so that current horses are not suddenly excluded and left paperless.


The proposal as written



> VI Part 7 C Page 103With Animal in position , the head in the normal position. Measure the vertical distance from the top of the wither to the measuring surface. All horses registered prior to 2011 will still be measured at the last hair of the mane for Showing.


Carin I think you must have missed it but this has already been addressed in the original proposal as written and many have brought up even more additions but it clearly said starting in 2011 (even if they started in 2012) and that all horses previously registered will still retain papers and would still be able to show as long as they continued to measure in at last mane hairs. No currently registered horses that are honestly in size would become paperless or grade or be unable to show

R3 - you have obviously put a lot of thought into this when it came up with AMHA and your tweaks to this proposal sound wonderful


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 15, 2010)

If you suggest to open up a breeding only division of the AMHR - do you also suggest to add in all the breeding stock show classes, since we are still supposed to be able to show the now over B's? This is a huge proposal. This would add several days to AMHR Nationals as well as local shows would have to expand.

This is a huge gap in the proposal.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 15, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> The proposal as written
> 
> Carin I think you must have missed it but this has already been addressed in the original proposal as written and many have brought up even more additions but it clearly said starting in 2011 (even if they started in 2012) and that all horses previously registered will still retain papers and would still be able to show as long as they continued to measure in at last mane hairs. No currently registered horses that are honestly in size would become paperless or grade or be unable to show
> 
> R3 - you have obviously put a lot of thought into this when it came up with AMHA and your tweaks to this proposal sound wonderful



No, I read it and totally understood it. My issue with it is there are foals inutero that are not registered, that would mature out of the height limits, and would be paperless if they were AMHR only. You raise the point where we measure then you need to raise the height allowed. Or not do it at all. This proposal will hurt the B AMHR only breeder. And I'm not ok with "improving" the "breed" by hurting established farms.

There does need to be study done at Nationals on the difference in height between mane hair and withers. I think then, and only then, can the membership make an educated decision that will effect everyone.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Jul 15, 2010)

My brain is starting to hurt form reading all these excellent arguments and suggestions!

For me this is a no brainer.

We measure to the top of the withers, always have.

34" and under to the withers.

If I had a dollar for every American horse who has been brought into the country only to be measured out I should be rich.

A club had to be started that took horses up to 38" in order to cater for these horses (it is doing very well!)

One thing I would have thought was self evident:

You _cannot_take away the papers of a registered horse because you change the rules of the society, I am pretty sure you would be sued if you tried, so making a way of doing this legally is imperative.

Instead of having to measure two ways, why not consider giving permanent height cards to all the at present LHOTM measured horses, once they are adult and if they measure in?

If this leeway were to be given to horses bred before 2011, permanently, it would all, eventually, take care of itself.

As to breeding, well, to be quite frank, breeding a horse that is 38" LHOTM is always going to be a lottery. You would just have to breed to smaller mares, and adjust your programme accordingly.

We breed as the market dictates.

This time, just this once, it is the Society that is dictating, not the market.

Since people do not whinge and whine about market dictates, I really fail to see why they are doing it about a society dictate that will benefit the entire "breed" AMHA and R, both.


----------



## kaykay (Jul 15, 2010)

I hate that anything to do with measuring invariably turns into "us against them" "Shetland vs Miniature" "A breeders vs B breeders"

This will do none of us any good at all. This issue cuts across all of that no matter what the horse is registered or what size you breed for. And to be real honest its going to affect AMHR only horses more then any other. I hate to see that happen. We did lose quite a few members when the hardship rule went into affect too quickly. Memberships are down so we dont need anything rocking the boat right now.

This will not solve measuring problems.

Honestly at this point I just see a whole lot of cons and not any pros. The only pro I can think of is it will make it easier for Breeders in Europe but it wont solve the problem of horses being imported over there that are over 34". Bottom line is cheaters are cheaters and just changing where you measure wont make them suddenly honest.

I thought about this a lot last night (since I was up all night LOL) and really who cares what other associations say about how we measure?


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 15, 2010)

Carin I do agree with you on that point and would hope that if the rule does pass it would not be considered extraordinary and give people time

No matter how we measure I have said before the key is ENFORCING that measurement- truly "punishing" those stewards who over and over again allow larger horses into the breed or the show ring and infact changing the way we allow height protests to happen.

IMO all heights should be posted at the show and any member should be able to protest a height. I think if it were more open then yes perhaps the 100 dollar bills would fly at first but I do think if it was open and available to anyone hopefully those who blatenly cheat will think twice.

Yes a horse can measure 37.50 one show- 38.00 the next and 38.50 the next as how we measure is not a science.. but when you are getting up into the 39.00 or 40.00 or for the under horses 35.00 or 36.00 there is a problem a huge problem where will it stop? Every year the line gets pushed farther and farther before you know it.. we will have 13 hand ponies in the show ring LOL


----------



## Sandee (Jul 15, 2010)

Amen, to the last two posts.(edited -this is going way to fast ...Last 2 post referring to Stormy and Txminipinto) Stormy, you made the point much better than what I've been saying.



stormy said:


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


----------



## MiLo Minis (Jul 15, 2010)

Lisa Strass said:


> Pros: Our horses would be measured like all equine including the ASPC registry. This is a benefit regarding our overseas markets as well.
> 
> Cons: The biggest negative I see is the confusion of how "grandfathered" horses are measured and the size differences that will be present in the show ring for the next 20 years.
> 
> ...


I am very agreeable with changing measuring to the withers but I don't like the idea of no grandfathering or raising the limit. I for one do not have ASPC double registered Minis but rather "pure" Minis and I breed for B size for driving. A lot of my horses push the 37 to 38" height and would no doubt measure over 38" at the withers. I paid good money for these REGISTERED horses. Who would compensate me for my losses if there were no grandfathering? Perhaps grandfathering with no showing for those over the 38" limit? They could be kept as registered breeding stock only. The only problem with that solution would be that geldings are not breeding stock. Perhaps a special class/es at the shows for grandfathered geldings over the 38" limit?


----------



## Kim (Jul 15, 2010)

Myself, I am wondering what the rationale behind this proposal is. It seems from many of the posts that many think that by changing to measuring at the top of the withers we will either (a) magically gain more respect from the rest of the horse world; and/or (b) solve all of our current measuring problems. Well, actually, neither will occur.

First, in my experience, it is not the location at which we measure our horses that prompts a lack of respect from “big-horse” people, it is the huge perception that still exists that minis are useless little Thelwell ponies with horrible conformation, and oh yeah, what do you DO with them. I have had my minis many times at both the Calgary Stampede (there is no bigger congregation of Western horsepeople anywhere in North America with cutting, reining, cattle penning, rodeo and heavy horse exhibitors - and more - all there at once) and at Spruce Meadows (ditto for the show jumping side of things). The number one comment I get from the big-horse people when they see my horses is: “He looks like a HORSE”. I cannot EVER remember someone making a comment about the place at which we measure our horses and using that as a basis to discredit the minis. Big horse people as a whole still tend not to realize that minis CAN have good conformation and also CAN do useful things like drive. Our organizations are making great strides in combating this perception, but there is still a long way to go.

If measuring is changed to the highest point at the wither (and yes, I am well aware that every other breed of horse measures here) and the height limits of 34 & 38 are not changed along with the measuring location, then what you are effectively doing is lowering the height limit of minis – and in turn making them less useful as driving and performance prospects. Big horse people LIKE performance prospects, which is why they have horses. They like to DO things with their horses. Changing to measuring at the wither without in turn increasing the height limit of minis is NOT going to make more big horse people magically respect minis more, in fact it will ultimately have the opposite effect as the quality of the breed as performance horses will decrease due to the breed becoming shorter.

If you change the measuring system to top of the wither, you are doing one or both of two things: (a) lowering the height limit of the registry – a HUGE move, and one that shouldn’t be undertaken lightly, especially if the proposed date is only next year, and (b) encouraging the breeding of mutton withered horses. In my experience, Miniatures with actual withers like big horses have tend to be the best movers and most athletic. Why would we want to encourage people not to breed these horses anymore? To me that’s taking a step back in time about 20 years!

Horse A that is 34 inches at the last hair of the mane and is, say, 35.25 inches at the wither is STILL the same size horse no matter where you measure or how tall you call him. If you lower the height limit to 34 or 38 inches at the wither you are definitely going to stop the breeding of a huge proportion of the most “useful” horses – i.e. those that have the best movement and the best conformation. Now before anyone jumps on me and says that thier 30 inch mini has great movement and wonderful conformation, I’m sure that is true, but realistically, it is hard to quarrel with the fact that most of the best movers and best conformed horses are near the top of the height limits, one has only to compare a 32 & under driving class with a 32-34 inch driving class to figure that out. Yes, of course there are 32 & under horses that can move just as well or in some cases even better than those approaching 34, but the depth of quality is just not there yet with the smaller ones. And it would also be interesting to look at whether these well moving horses that currently fit into the 32 & under division are high-withered and would end up measuring over 34 with this new system. Something tells me many would.

So the way I see it, if your goal is to gain respect from big horse people, making minis less useful by decreasing the size limit is NOT the way to go about doing it - encouraging geldings and promoting the performance potential of miniatures IS, and this just can’t/won’t happen if you get rid of so many of the best moving horses that are big enough and strong enough for a heavy adult to drive.

Finally, measuring at the top of the withers is NOT going to suddenly solve our measuring issues. Although I am not involved in hunter ponies so can’t speak from personal experience, what I have heard is that the same sort of “tricks” designed to “shrink” horses happen when measuring at the top of the withers, and a quick google search informs me that sedation, changing head height, exercise, splaying front legs, etc. etc. etc. (all the same things that mini exhibitors do) are implemented by pony exhibitors to measure their horse in. I hope someone has considered this and thoroughly researched it.

I’m interested in WHY this change has been proposed, and if it’s so that respect can be gained among big horse people, tell me why you think this is a better way than promoting minis as performance animals that you can actually DO something with? I just don’t see the rationale behind a move to measuring at the top of the withers unless the allowable height limits are also increased because what it really means is lowering the height limit of the Miniature Horse, which decreases its performance capabilities.

Also, it’s the prevailing attitude here of “oh, just get another horse” and "change your breeding program" that is bothering me. Lots of people already have their show horses that would measure out under this new system. They’ve invested time and money in these horses, and it’s not so easy (nor would they want to) to just replace these borderline horses that may now measure out. It would be easy for the big breeder to adapt to such a change, but for the bread and butter of the registry, the so called “little people”, the youth and amateurs that do not breed for 10 or 20+ foals per year but rather enjoy their minis by showing them and maybe having one or two foals per year, this change would be catastrophic. From my own perspective, I have 3 horses that would not measure in under the new system. Who is going to reimburse me for the time and money I have spent on them? Not to mention that I have a huge emotional attachment to my beloved friends. No, I am not a breeder, but if you alienate people like me (and trust me, there are many of us), what does that do for the future of the industry?


----------



## kaykay (Jul 15, 2010)

> I’m interested in WHY this change has been proposed, and if it’s so that respect can be gained among big horse people, tell me why you think this is a better way than promoting minis as performance animals that you can actually DO something with? I just don’t see the rationale behind a move to measuring at the top of the withers unless the allowable height limits are also increased because what it really means is lowering the height limit of the Miniature Horse, which decreases its performance capabilities.
> Also, it’s the prevailing attitude here of “oh, just get another horse” and "change your breeding program" that is bothering me. Lots of people already have their show horses that would measure out under this new system. They’ve invested time and money in these horses, and it’s not so easy (nor would they want to) to just replace these borderline horses that may now measure out. It would be easy for the big breeder to adapt to such a change, but for the bread and butter of the registry, the so called “little people”, the youth and amateurs that do not breed for 10 or 20+ foals per year but rather enjoy their minis by showing them and maybe having one or two foals per year, this change would be catastrophic. From my own perspective, I have 3 horses that would not measure in under the new system. Who is going to reimburse me for the time and money I have spent on them? Not to mention that I have a huge emotional attachment to my beloved friends. No, I am not a breeder, but if you alienate people like me (and trust me, there are many of us), what does that do for the future of the industry?







:yeah


----------



## Getitia (Jul 15, 2010)

Some thoughts – perhaps in the future an approach that would be helpful (and cause less anxiety, high emotions and confusion) for this type of significant proposal would be to include at the time of posting more comprehensive and detailed information such as:

·	The issue(s)/concern(s) and/or benefit(s) that the proposal is intending to remedy

·	The proposal language

·	The name(s) of the individual(s) proposing the change

·	A detail of both the short term and long term concerns/ramifications as well as any potential/suspected unintended consequences that may result from the proposal and how (if possible) the concern(s) can or should be addressed.

·	The potential financial impact to the organization and/or the potential financial impact to individual members.

(for this particular proposal, it would be very helpful to help understand any disparate impact as well as the potential impact to the club and club members to list the horse height statistics by size of the number of horses currently permanently registered with AMHR –say from ages 3 to 25 – and 28 to 38 inches as the data will help indicate impact)

Then post all of the information above at the same time and ask the members of the forum for critical feedback especially regarding any concerns that may have been overlooked and to help determine overall support for the proposal.

For example – it appears that perhaps an unintended consequence (given that the majority of all horses will measure taller at the withers than at the last hair of the mane) is that this proposal as written and implemented will actually reduce the future height of the breed (non grandfathered group) – Today’s AMHR miniature horse has a maximum height at the last hair of 38 and in the future the height will be from approximately 35 ½ to 37 last hair of the mane (depending on the wither size of the particular horse) and thus each current height will be reduced accordingly with the maximum height most significantly impacted.

In four years, a true (non-grandfathered) 34 inch AMHA/AMHR miniature (measured at the last hair of the mane) that has any withers at all will become a B or oversize miniature from a show and registration perspective. (Also one needs to consider that for AMHA to implement measuring at the withers, they would have to also reduce the height of the 34/33 inch miniatures by ½ to 2 inches – and I recall from the AMHA marketing survey that was conducted a few years ago – more AMHA miniatures were registered that measured 33 to 34 than any other height category).

Also consider, that in many regions, it is not unusual to have joint AMHA and AMHR shows back to back on the same weekend. So imagine in the future the AMHA 34 and under miniature that shows on a Saturday then on Sunday is measured in at 35 at the AMHR show and is now a B division/oversize show miniature (it seems that the stewards may have some interesting discussions during the measurement sessions in this example) or perhaps the exhibitor may decide to simply not show in the AMHR show as an oversize miniature.

After reading through the many pages of this post, it appears this change is being made primarily to correct the current issues with measuring at the last hair – Just speaking from personal experience, we have experienced and witnessed as much variation in having ponies measured at the top of the withers as we have with last hair of the mane miniature measurements. Thus perhaps the primary focus should be to address the real root issue - correcting the current measuring concerns that have been discussed year after year.


----------



## Itsy Bitsy Acres (Jul 15, 2010)

Kim said:


> Myself, I am wondering what the rationale behind this proposal is. It seems from many of the posts that many think that by changing to measuring at the top of the withers we will either (a) magically gain more respect from the rest of the horse world; and/or (b) solve all of our current measuring problems. Well, actually, neither will occur.
> 
> First, in my experience, it is not the location at which we measure our horses that prompts a lack of respect from "big-horse" people, it is the huge perception that still exists that minis are useless little Thelwell ponies with horrible conformation, and oh yeah, what do you DO with them. I have had my minis many times at both the Calgary Stampede (there is no bigger congregation of Western horsepeople anywhere in North America with cutting, reining, cattle penning, rodeo and heavy horse exhibitors - and more - all there at once) and at Spruce Meadows (ditto for the show jumping side of things). The number one comment I get from the big-horse people when they see my horses is: "He looks like a HORSE". I cannot EVER remember someone making a comment about the place at which we measure our horses and using that as a basis to discredit the minis. Big horse people as a whole still tend not to realize that minis CAN have good conformation and also CAN do useful things like drive. Our organizations are making great strides in combating this perception, but there is still a long way to go.
> 
> ...


Amen!!!! I am in total agreement, could not have said it better my self!


----------



## Devon (Jul 15, 2010)

MiLo Minis said:


> I am very agreeable with changing measuring to the withers but I don't like the idea of no grandfathering or raising the limit. I for one do not have ASPC double registered Minis but rather "pure" Minis and I breed for B size for driving. A lot of my horses push the 37 to 38" height and would no doubt measure over 38" at the withers. I paid good money for these REGISTERED horses. Who would compensate me for my losses if there were no grandfathering? Perhaps grandfathering with no showing for those over the 38" limit? They could be kept as registered breeding stock only. The only problem with that solution would be that geldings are not breeding stock. Perhaps a special class/es at the shows for grandfathered geldings over the 38" limit?



Agreed; I actually thought I would go measure random horses in the field here not all mine but this is what I found ; Try to tell me it's fair we all spent good money on these horses ..

LOTM 34.5 - Wither - 36.75 ( This was a yearling who would then not be able to show and currently he is a medium B yearling AMHR only)

LOTM 36.75 - Wither 38.5 (2 year old AMHR only filly half shetland)

LOTM 33.75 - Wither 35.75 (older style amhr only mare)

LOTM 36.75 - Wither - 39 ( ASPC/AMHR Stallion)

LOTM 36.5 - Wither - 38.25 (AMHR only mare showed in under 36 division at nationals last year to put into perpective what would be in your 36-38" class)

Its crazy to change it and not alter the heights these horses are all small not pushing their not even 37" and won't measure :s I know they'll be fine if they are allowed to breed still but now we can't breeding them is a risk



> Also, it's the prevailing attitude here of "oh, just get another horse" and "change your breeding program" that is bothering me. Lots of people already have their show horses that would measure out under this new system. They've invested time and money in these horses, and it's not so easy (nor would they want to) to just replace these borderline horses that may now measure out. It would be easy for the big breeder to adapt to such a change, but for the bread and butter of the registry, the so called "little people", the youth and amateurs that do not breed for 10 or 20+ foals per year but rather enjoy their minis by showing them and maybe having one or two foals per year, this change would be catastrophic. From my own perspective, I have 3 horses that would not measure in under the new system. Who is going to reimburse me for the time and money I have spent on them? Not to mention that I have a huge emotional attachment to my beloved friends. No, I am not a breeder, but if you alienate people like me (and trust me, there are many of us), what does that do for the future of the industry?


And Kim Well Said ...


----------



## horsehug (Jul 15, 2010)

Excellent excellent posts..... both Kim and Getitia!!

Susan O.


----------



## 3EagleFarm (Jul 15, 2010)

Wow, Kim!!! What a great post!!!!

Please everybody take your time to read it trough!











Thank you, Kim!


----------



## kaykay (Jul 15, 2010)

> After reading through the many pages of this post, it appears this change is being made primarily to correct the current issues with measuring at the last hair – Just speaking from personal experience, we have experienced and witnessed as much variation in having ponies measured at the top of the withers as we have with last hair of the mane miniature measurements. Thus perhaps the primary focus should be to address the real root issue - correcting the current measuring concerns that have been discussed year after year.


And thats pretty much it in a nutshell. This WILL NOT solve measuring issues! Wont even come close. Lets address the real issue.

So far the only real pro to this is that other breeds will see we measure like they do. Not enough benefit to me to cause so many bad side affects of doing this. The bad definitely outweighs the good


----------



## Karen S (Jul 15, 2010)

Good Afternoon,

I have enjoyed reading all of the pros and cons of this subject matter...I would like to address one thing regarding the author of the proposal. As with ALL proposals with the ASPC/AMHR it is customary to post the proposal but leave off the name of the author until it is presented at convention. This allows all of us time to discuss it without repercussions to the author. I do know last year some proposals that I had presented were made public with my name before convention. I had tons of phone calls and emails and some that were not no nice. Everyone is entitled to submit a proposal without being ridiculed. When these proposals are presented during the committee meetings, then and only then can they be amended or altered, and only if the author is present. If not, then they are voted down. In this case, even though Belinda stepped forward and stated that this was her proposal that she presented on someone else behalf, until it is brought to the floor for all to vote on, then and only then can she change ANY part of this proposal. That is why she's asking now for any tweaking.

Yes, even on the ASPC/ASPR side there's still problems with some stewards measuring.....they are measuring up the neck not at the withers, as I have personally seen some do just that. Not always but it still happens. JMTCW.

Karen


----------



## OhHorsePee (Jul 15, 2010)

I really do not care what other breed people think. We are who we are and they are whom they are. Being different is not a bad thing. It is no secret that BH people will always see miniature horses and ponies to be insignificant to them if that is how they feel before a proposal would change the measuring. Why are people trying to change who we are for them and mess with our own paying members wishes in a negative way???? Why change the whole way of measuring for all because some sell to overseas buyers and they measure differently over there? If you know they are going overseas then measure true at the withers for them when you quote the height.

I had to laugh to myself today while I was wondering how people would try to cheat with this proposal if it became a rule. I could see a market for wither prosthesis in some people's future.

Thank you Karen for explaining the process of a proposal. Sorry you were ridiculed in the manner that you were!! I am sure a new rule will come about so it can be changed now.


----------



## REO (Jul 15, 2010)

I don't care what big horse people say. In all my years in minis, I've never had anyone say a thing about the way minis are measured. In fact, I was a big horse person coming into minis myself. And I never thought a thing about it. It doesn't bother me. IMO it's the minis SIZE, not the way they're measured that don't get respect from big horse people. What do you do with them? etc etc

I don't care if minis are measured from their nostrils to their dock, I just don't think people should be forced to tear down what they've built to satisfy some.

I'm sure I'll be torn apart for stating my views. But I hope people will think about what I say.

I'm SO against this, that I hate coming to the forum just because this topic is here, makes my chest hurt.

Is this whole thing coming up in AMHR because of the extra tall ponies showing at Nationals? Answer, just enforce the measuring rules, or just have the B size measure at the withers.

I don't belong to the "I got mine, so let everyone else fend for themselves" camp.

I'm thinking not about the B (38") size, but the 34" and under. Which is what I, and MANY others breed for.

YES there are some that breed for tiny, that is what they like and that's great. But what about people like me who spent a LOT of years and tons of $$ working hard to develop what they like, which is the 32"-34" size? The AMHR isn't *all* about the B size only.

People who say, well they'll just have to "adjust" their programs. Easy for them to say! Many people can't afford to just throw away everything they have and start over.

What happens when you upgrade your program?

You SELL off the ones you don't want, right? Someone else will buy them for their programs. No biggie.

Think about the BIG PICTURE.

If AMHR and then AMHA go to this without raising the 2" to allow for high withers...........

Years from now all those horses (1000's) that were legally under 34" before, are now too close to the limit or over and UNDESIRABLE. NO ONE will want to buy them. People "adjusting" their programs won't have any place to sell their horses to. The rescues and roadways are already full enough of horses. What will happen when there are 1000's of horses no one wants because they're no longer wanted because they're too big for the A breeders? Dumped in sales or heading to meat plants in Mexico?

MY big picture is, it won't be as bad if AMHR does it, IF your horses carry R papers already. BUT if AMHA follows suit, which is what I most fear, then this is what will happen. "Grandfathering" only works for so many, but not all. And what I said above could (and IMO would) happen.

I say, just enforce the measuring rules.

OK, now you're all going to tell me I'm wrong and that won't happen, but I've had YEARS to think about this and these are my feelings about it.


----------



## RayVik (Jul 15, 2010)

Karen S said:


> Good Afternoon,
> 
> I have enjoyed reading all of the pros and cons of this subject matter...I would like to address one thing regarding the author of the proposal. As with ALL proposals with the ASPC/AMHR it is customary to post the proposal but leave off the name of the author until it is presented at convention. This allows all of us time to discuss it without repercussions to the author. I do know last year some proposals that I had presented were made public with my name before convention. I had tons of phone calls and emails and some that were not no nice. Everyone is entitled to submit a proposal without being ridiculed. When these proposals are presented during the committee meetings, then and only then can they be amended or altered, and only if the author is present. If not, then they are voted down. In this case, even though Belinda stepped forward and stated that this was her proposal that she presented on someone else behalf, until it is brought to the floor for all to vote on, then and only then can she change ANY part of this proposal. That is why she's asking now for any tweaking.
> 
> ...



Karen,

I am not wanting to rob this thread but can you please direct me to the procedure, bylaw, rule or other specific area that correctly identifies and otherwise outlines the highlighted area...I am not aware of any such rules or procedure in print in any area of our organization and question the validity of any attempt to enforce or otherwise follow such guidelines in the absents of any such requirements. All committees are formed and staffed by the president of the ASPC/AMHR other then those individuals so named, no other members or officials are part of that committee and only those who are members of any committee may vote on any item before them...the membership whether present or not during any committee meeting has absolutely zero authority regarding a committee action...the general membership meeting is another story but the outline of events as highlighted above are absent of any validation within our organization to my knowledge.

The far reaching effect and importance of something having such far reaching ramifications as this would have, should not be taken so trivial as to be considered or rejected based on a flawed and irrational protocol/precedent which follows no doctrine or written guidelines. JMHO


----------



## Belinda (Jul 15, 2010)

Karen S said:


> Good Afternoon,
> 
> I have enjoyed reading all of the pros and cons of this subject matter...I would like to address one thing regarding the author of the proposal. As with ALL proposals with the ASPC/AMHR it is customary to post the proposal but leave off the name of the author until it is presented at convention. This allows all of us time to discuss it without repercussions to the author. I do know last year some proposals that I had presented were made public with my name before convention. I had tons of phone calls and emails and some that were not no nice. Everyone is entitled to submit a proposal without being ridiculed.
> 
> ...


----------



## horsehug (Jul 15, 2010)

Robin (REO)

You already know from my early post that I agree with you!

And as to overseas buyers, like someone else said basically.... How hard is it to tell them the measurement from the last hairs of the mane and also the one to the withers.... so they can decide if they want the horse or not!

If people were just honest about so MANY things, we simply would not be having this whole conversation/discussion/proposal etc!!

Susan O.


----------



## Devon (Jul 15, 2010)

Belinda said:


> So guess I will go back and JUMP in that Flame Suit !! Remember *''DON'T SHOOT THE MESSAGENGER !!!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL don't worry B we still luv you


----------



## Yaddax3 (Jul 15, 2010)

I hear that there is a second proposal regarding measuring at the withers.

This proposal, I'm told, impacts both minis and ponies and the measurement would be at the bottom of the withers.

Anyone have more information on this?

Note to Belinda and other board members: If it's not just hearsay, I'm guessing you've gotten wind of this proposal and please give us more detail if you can.


----------



## Belinda (Jul 15, 2010)

Yaddax3 said:


> I hear that there is a second proposal regarding measuring at the withers.
> 
> This proposal, I'm told, impacts both minis and ponies and the measurement would be at the bottom of the withers.
> 
> ...


Bob ,

No one I have talked to knows anything about it , and it would have gone to Larry as Chair of the AMHR committee , To me as Chair of the Classic Committe, and the chairs of any other division it would deal with ..


----------



## Yaddax3 (Jul 15, 2010)

Belinda:

Thank you for the quick response. If you and Larry haven't seen it, it doesn't exist as a proposal.

Perhaps it was someone's idea for a proposal and it was never sent in. I will look into that for my own satisfaction. Thanks again and we look forward to seeing you at Congress. (My kids are hoping you'll have more peanuts for them to snack on.)


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 15, 2010)

Minimor said:


> Well, I guess it could also be commented on how much 34" has grown. There are small ponies competing as Minis, and there are 36" Minis competing in the under 34" division. For some reason, though, that seems to be okay....perhaps because those ones are not so likely to be registered Shetlands?
> 
> If there is suddenly this major concern about doing something about oversize horses being shown then the concern should be about both size divisions, Over and Under, not just the Over division. So, if you want to clean this up, why not crack down on measuring practices--enforcing the rules regarding stance of horse, actions of handler, pressing down on the measure stick etc etc etc instead of coming up with a rule that will eliminate the 37" to 38" at-the-last-mane-hair horses. Even with measuring at the withers, if someone wants to take an oversize horse and stand him spraddle legged and all stretched out, chances are they're going to fit him into the size limit too. You're going to be surprised at how tall 38" at-the-withers is too.
> 
> ...





txminipinto said:


> I don't think anyone is concerned about the ASPC/AMHR horses. They will always have some place to go. The concern is the honest 38" at the last hair AMHR only horse that will now measure out if they measure at the withers. It is those horses and those owners I am concerned about. I am at a loss why anyone would just shrug their shoulders and say "too bad" to those owners if this rule passes as it is written. It is blatantly unfair and is exactly the type of action that tickes people off and makes them leave our association.
> 
> If we are going to measure at the withers then we need to adjust our heights so that current horses are not suddenly excluded and left paperless. In this economy, the association needs to be doing all that it can to retain and bring in new members.





JaniceZ said:


> Perhaps combine these two ideas? The registry could make it so that all horses are measured first at the top of the withers, and if they measure above 34/38' (or whatever they raise the standard to), and were born before the proposed date (2011), they could be remeasured at the last hairs of the mane, as stated above.
> 
> These horses that are already born and registered could still show. The registry could then create a 'breeding only division'. Horses in this division would be horses that are the ofspring of horses registered before the proposed date (2011), and grew over the height standards. These horses would not loose thier heritage or value as miniature horses since they could still be used for breeding. They could not be shown however, due to their height. This would create incentive for breeders to breed for horses within the height range, rather then continuing to breed horses that are above 38inches (or whatever the standards are raised to) at the withers.
> 
> ...


Great things said!

I personally would like to see the "grandfathering" rule brought in, allowing for us to be more of a BREED.




I'd also like harder, more strict polices on the measuring rules, whether the measuring is done at the LHOTM or TOTW. And if measuring is moved to the TOTW, I'd like to see the height raised to 39" or 40" AND implemented in 3 to 5 YEARS from now to allow farms to make needed changes in a timely manner. To top it all off, seeing a "5-20 year goal" would be ideal for the registry and members alike!

Also, yes this would affect my breeding program too, as I only have AMHR horses (No ASPC at this time), and I breed for B minis. My foals would be worthless as I desire a performance horse of 36-38" at the LHOTM, if the TOTW was brought in with the height limit not being changed. The would also, of course, be unregistered without the grandfathering effect. As a proud member, following the current rules, this would truly be a SLAP in the face! And I'm sure I'm not alone, unfortunately.

Also, I'd love to be at Convention, (especially to receive my HOF this year!!) but money may very well NOT allow this. How is it fair that an absent member's opinion is just cast aside and not heard?

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Jacki Loomis (Jul 15, 2010)

As I've stated previously, I do not support a change in the method used to measure AMHR or AMHA Miniature Horses. "Reo" brought up some points that reinforce for me that a change would not benefit most Miniature Horses or their owners.

Reo said in part

"Years from now all those horses (1000's) that were legally under 34" before, are now too close to the limit or over and UNDESIRABLE. NO ONE will want to buy them. People "adjusting" their programs won't have any place to sell their horses to. The rescues and roadways are already full enough of horses. What will happen when there are 1000's of horses no one wants because they're no longer wanted because they're too big for the A breeders? Dumped in sales or heading to meat plants in Mexico?"

 

Several commentators have encouraged us to consider all members, not just ourselves. So, I wonder what ASPC Shetland Breeders think about changing the method used to measure AMHR Miniature Horses. I could see this change impacting them significantly, fewer ASPC Shetlands will be able to qualify for AMHR Hardship as they will not measure 38" at the top of the wither. 

This does not bother me, some among this forum may even see that as a positive if they view Shetlands showing in the miniature ring as a problem but either way it could have a significant financial impact on the small Shetland market.

When ASPC/AMHR lowered the Hardshipping fee I foresaw this situation, it is cheap and easy to hardship a shetland into AMHR and so many people are doing it. We are show people and so we will do what it takes to produce the show horse of the day and I have hardshipped several, that said I have never been a supporter of the lower fees because I knew it would impact what was shown in the AMHR show ring and it would forever change our AMHR Miniature Horse.

I think this has been a healthy dialogue about a very important issue, I'm glad we've had this opportunity.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## Magic (Jul 16, 2010)

I agree with what Reo said too. What DOES happen to all of those "just breeding stock" horses that before this proposed rule change were legitimate miniature horses under the present rules? Their value nosedives, even if they are grandfathered in. For the many breeders who wouldn't want to chance breeding them in case the foals go over (whether over the "under" category or over the "over" category), what choice do they have but to try to sell them, at newly-devalued prices? There are also bound to be *MANY* AMHR members who would feel betrayed and alienated by their registry and I think that the registry would suffer greatly because of it. Both memberships and registrations would likely drop drastically. That wouldn't be good for anyone.

I have both AMHA and AMHR miniatures, both over and under 34". I don't breed for the tiniest horse possible; I breed for the best conformation possible, with great movement. Performance is my preference (though we've done well in halter too) so I like the horses at the upper end of each category. I could live with this rule change, it wouldn't affect me much (though many of my "unders" would likely become "overs" overnight) but I can see that it could devastate many programs and cause a lot of resentment and sorrow, and that's something that would be very sad to have happen.


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 16, 2010)

Robin, you know how much I appreciate you. But with all respect, I feel you are over reacting on this one. If every one will look back at the proposal (which I think almost everyone agrees would be better with some tweaking), NO ONE IS BEING DUMPED OUT. If your passion is with 32-34 inch horses at LHOTM, you will still have them, maybe in a different class, but still there. If breeders of the upper size horses change their breeding programs, there is the market for your formerly 34 inch horses LHOTM that are now over. The ones that will be most affected by this is of course the owners of the 37-38 inch LHOTM horses that will go over at the withers. Will those horses lose value? If you feel they are inferior to the Show Ponies, yes.

 

My passion is with under 30. Currently, both of my stallions are under 30. If the measurement changes to TOTW, one will still be under 30, and the other probably just over. So what if they have a different tag. They are still the same horse and I love them. I currently have one 2 year old filly that will probably mature about 29 inches LHOTM and around 30 TOTW. I have two mares that measure 30 inches dead on LHOTM and of course will be a little over 30 TOTW. All my other mares are under 32 LHOTM. I have one yearling filly (that I adore) that could _possibly_ go over 32 LHOTM and possibly over 34 TOTW when mature (even though her parents were 31.75 and 31), but I am OK with that. She will be grandfathered in and eventually bred to a smaller stallion.

 

The point is, NO ONE IS BEING KICKED OUT.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Jul 16, 2010)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree...I posted earlier that I used to own a AMHR only filly that would have been kicked out if born in 2011 under this new rule(if I understand it correctly ) she would have been just another unregistered horse. Most of my horses would be fine except one or two, one being my main herd sire who is in the 34" under category currently. I want to produce 34" and under foals but couldn't with him under the new rule. I just don't think I should have to change my breeding goals because some want to change the way horses are measured....essentially as Kim said in a earlier post(great post btw) changing the height of the breed and thus reducing the practicality of minis in the eyes of the "Big Horse" world. I do think Robin is right and people will get rid of the horses in their programs that don't fit in with their goals(I won't but some will) especially if AMHA follows AMHR in this and I really think they might.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 16, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> Robin, you know how much I appreciate you. But with all respect, I feel you are over reacting on this one. If every one will look back at the proposal (which I think almost everyone agrees would be better with some tweaking), NO ONE IS BEING DUMPED OUT. If your passion is with 32-34 inch horses at LHOTM, you will still have them, maybe in a different class, but still there. If breeders of the upper size horses change their breeding programs, there is the market for your formerly 34 inch horses LHOTM that are now over. The ones that will be most affected by this is of course the owners of the 37-38 inch LHOTM horses that will go over at the withers. Will those horses lose value? If you feel they are inferior to the Show Ponies, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Except that is just NOT true! Without raising the height limit, there will be horses KICKED OUT! Not the current horses, but many current breeding stock horses will undoubtedly produce foals and stock that WILL go over. These could be broodmares and stallions that have been used for years, but now with this new rule, them and their foals will be VALUELESS. You don't seem to grasp the number of 36-38" (and even over sized 39") horses and farms that WILL be GREATLY affected.

And, again with out raising the height, my 33" LHOTM show horse would be worth much less in my eyes. Sure, she could keep showing as an "A", but likely her foals would go over, and no body wants a horse that is just over into another division. This mare herself has done wonderful things for me, but she clearly looks "A" size. As a "B" she simply does not have what it would take to be as successful. That would have a impact on her value.

And going back to the "B's" for a moment, if this rule took affect in 2011, as listed I would be out a lot of money. I have a AMHR only mare that is around 37-38" LHOTM who is being bred to a 38" LHOTM stallion. I have spent over $4000 on this breeding... for what, a _GRADE_ horse?! That is just plain ridiculous and I would be devastated if that were the case. I am NOT rich and this was a huge goal for me (and yes a huge deal of money)- my only foal of the year. To just be thrown aside is huge to me. I am not the only one is this situation.

And yes, I feel that my MINIATURE HORSES *ARE* inferior to the current Show Ponies! They are very _different_.

I am very against this rule as it stands. It should be done over years and have the height changed. I am glad that some will not be affected, but others will be, and that should be a huge concern. Right now, we really don't need to rock the boat, with the market the way it is.

JMHO as a concerned AMHR member.


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 16, 2010)

AshleyNicole said:


> I'm sorry but I have to disagree...I posted earlier that I used to own a AMHR only filly that would have been kicked out if born in 2011 under this new rule she would have been just another unregistered horse. Most of my horses would be fine except one or two, one being my main herd sire who is in the 34" under category currently. I want to produce a 34" and under foals but couldn't with him under the new rule. I just don't think I should have to change my breeding goals because some want to change the way horses are measured....essentially as Kim said in a earlier post(great post btw) changing the height of the breed and thus reducing the practicality of minis in the eyes of the "Big Horse" world. I do think Robin is right and people will get rid of the horses in their programs that don't fit in with their goals(I won't but some will) especially if AMHA follows AMHR in this and I really think they might.


Ashley, I REALLY AM trying to understand your rationale, and not just be arguementive. BUT, you have again overlooked several points. First of all, as I mentioned, almost everyone agrees that there needs to be some tweaking, like extending the deadline farther than 2011. Maybe 2012 or even 2015.

 

Secondly, the way you state it, the only value in your filly is in her registration papers. She would be eligible for the Show Pony registry. _IF_ you feel she is so inferior that she would not fit there, _perhaps_ she should be culled from the gene pool anyway. 

 

Thirdly, it _appears_ (the way you have stated it) that the lable on your stallion is more important than what he actually is. You would not have to change your breeding program, but your breeding program could possibly have a different lable on it.

 

AND, that is why we are in this mess to begin with. The originators wanted them to APPEAR to be smaller than they actually are. I think it is time correct that mistake.


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 16, 2010)

Desiree, it appears we were typing at the same time. I think I addressed most of your same issues in my reply above. All I can say is, I'm sorry you have spent so much money on a foal that you yourself consider inferior. Your words, not mine.

We all have opinions and concerns. Yours is as valid as mine. And vise-versa.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Jul 16, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> Ashley, I REALLY AM trying to understand your rationale, and not just be arguementive. BUT, you have again overlooked several points. First of all, as I mentioned, almost everyone agrees that there needs to be some tweaking, like extending the deadline farther than 2011. Maybe 2012 or even 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know I am not taking it as anything other than a discussion but I never planned on breeding that filly, I had gotten her as a driving horse to possibly compete at some shows with, I don't think that she would have been able to compete in a new category. I would be all for this new rule if the height were raised. I have some horses that are only AMHA registered so if AMHA also decided to measure this way then I couldn't breed my AMHA only mares to my stallion. I know that I could get them registered with AMHR but if I did I would like the resulting foals to be double registered if I went to the trouble to have the mares double registered there is a possibility that the foals wouldn't be if the mares were bred to the now over sized stallion. I do agree that the originators should have from the start had them measured at the withers but if we are correcting a mistake we should do our best to not alienate current members


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 16, 2010)

Songcatcher,

It isn't that Ashley's horse should be culled. Or it is inferior, it is more like inappropriate. Taking most miniatures to show in the ASPR would be like taking a Country Western driving horse and putting it in a park class.

But didn't the association create a class for those horses who did not have the higher head action for country pleasure to have a division called country western for lower head sets and a different leg action. So were these horses inferior? Should they have been culled? Just because they are not park horses, nor single pleasure horses, nor even country pleasure.

In today's ASPR country pleasure class you need a park horse to compete. And very few minis are actually park horses.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 16, 2010)

I wasn't going to say this, but I guess I will after all.

All this talk about and pointing fingers at horses that seem to be inferior. Keep in mind that I wouldn't personally use the word "inferior" to describe them, but that's how some want to call them, so that is the word I will use here. * Perhaps some of these horses are inferior when it comes to competing in the Shetland ring, and perhaps some of them are inferior when it comes to competing as a National Show Pony, but a good many of them are WINNING in the AMHR ring. So, I ask you this--when you have inferior ponies winning AMHR classes, what does that say about things???*

I was talking about this with someone yesterday. She asked me what is the point of this proposal. I said I wasn't really sure, that I get why measuring at the withers is a good thing, but I don't get why it's necessary to reduce height at the same time. I don't see why the horses cannot remain at the same height as they've always been, only now they would be recognized as their true height at the withers. She said that it sounds to her like someone just wants to eliminate the taller horses that so often are winning in the ring--a sore loser way of getting rid of some competition. Well, you know when she put it that way I wasn't sure what to say--I couldn't really argue with that statement. It does have that note to it.

Moving horses from AMHR into National show pony...first off that means added expense in terms of DNA. Secondly, there is no place to show NSPR other than Congress, because currently Congress is the only show that offers NSPR classes. As I recall, all that is offered there is one driving class, one western class and one english class. That alone lets Miniatures out of the competition, other than the driving class....because how many Miniatures, even the tall ones, get ridden walk, trot, canter by anyone other than small children? The majority of owners don't have small children that can ride w/t/c. "Dump your tall breeding stock or move their offspring into NSPR" isn't much of an alternative! NSPR was intended for the bigger ponies....where ASPC or AMHR is crossed on a bigger horse to produce a 13 or 13.2 hh pony.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 16, 2010)

Crabtree Farm said:


> Songcatcher,
> 
> It isn't that Ashley's horse should be culled. Or it is inferior, it is more like inappropriate. Taking most miniatures to show in the ASPR would be like taking a Country Western driving horse and putting it in a park class.
> 
> ...


AMEN! Classic example of people NOT understanding the shetland pony and the ASPC.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 16, 2010)

Minimor said:


> I wasn't going to say this, but I guess I will after all.
> 
> All this talk about and pointing fingers at horses that seem to be inferior. Keep in mind that I wouldn't personally use the word "inferior" to describe them, but that's how some want to call them, so that is the word I will use here. * Perhaps some of these horses are inferior when it comes to competing in the Shetland ring, and perhaps some of them are inferior when it comes to competing as a National Show Pony, but a good many of them are WINNING in the AMHR ring. So, I ask you this--when you have inferior ponies winning AMHR classes, what does that say about things???*
> 
> ...


How about the word "inappropriate".


----------



## Karen S (Jul 16, 2010)

“_Karen, _

_ _

_I am not wanting to rob this thread but can you please direct me to the procedure, bylaw, rule or other specific area that correctly identifies and otherwise outlines the highlighted area...I am not aware of any such rules or procedure in print in any area of our organization and question the validity of any attempt to enforce or otherwise follow such guidelines in the absents of any such requirements. All committees are formed and staffed by the president of the ASPC/AMHR other then those individuals so named, no other members or officials are part of that committee and only those who are members of any committee may vote on any item before them...the membership whether present or not during any committee meeting has absolutely zero authority regarding a committee action...the general membership meeting is another story but the outline of events as highlighted above are absent of any validation within our organization to my knowledge. _

_The far reaching effect and importance of something having such far reaching ramifications as this would have, should not be taken so trivial as to be considered or rejected based on a flawed and irrational protocol/precedent which follows no doctrine or written guidelines. JMHO”_

Good Morning Ray,

Thank you for responding to my post, but in my post you will see I said “customary”. I have been attending every convention since 1998 and have attended many of the committee meetings while there. In the past ten years it has been “customary” to present proposals without the author’s name and NO there has NEVER been any formal protocol for it as you want to point out. Only up until recently (2009) have any of the proposals presented for consideration even been posted on the internet or the ASPC/AMHR website. We all have had to wait until we got to the convention, went into those committee meetings, to know what was being proposed. Why? It is because any proposal presented had not even been printed in our official “Journal” for the membership to review before the convention or discuss just like we are doing now.

Way before the current chairman was appointed as chair of the Classic committee, the chair during that period of time before her was a member of our club and she did share those proposals that were presented with our club members, there again keeping the author unknown so that we could discuss them. I know you are the chair of the By-laws as well as many members of this forum know, and just like you all of us that are committee chairs ARE appointed by the President as that is written in our official rulebook.

I have been committee chair of the amateur committee since convention 2002. I do know how to run a meeting with proposals. I do know how to present those proposals to the floor without ridicule to any author. It is “customarily” asked if that author is present. A simple answer yes or no is all that is asked and received during those meetings. No there isn’t anything printed in any of our rules regarding leaving off the authors name even though it is asked for on those proposal forms. So, I guess you will want to make a By-law or rule to do just that. That’s fine with me. Just accept my post the way it was written. I was merely explaining HOW it has been done and what happens when an author is exposed before convention. Yes, Belinda has her flame suite on, and she does most of the time, but again it was HER choice to let anyone know that she was presenting that proposal on another person’s behalf. Right now, it still doesn’t give ANY committee chair the right to post the authors names to the membership until we DO have something in writing giving us direction to do so. So in the meantime, it’s best to leave it as it is. I too have big shoulders and can discuss things rationally and most folks respect what I write or say either in person or in written form. I try really hard to listen to what their pros or cons are without being judgmental of that person concerning any subject matter that affects us all. It’s still up to the membership to vote on those issues. Yes, my proposals were voted down at convention in the committee’s to which I submitted them in, but in the long run I would have appreciated the chair of the committee that posted my proposals to the ASPC/AMHR website in 2009 to have kept my name off of those proposals. Until such time at convention if anyone attending those committee’s had wanted to know “who” the author was, then I had the opportunity to let them know it was me that presented them. I might had wanted an opportunity to change some wording at that time, but people already had a pre-conceived idea of the outcome of that proposal (just like this case) so those proposals were voted down which was fine by me. So by keeping those authors out of the spotlight it allows good discussion overall and not ridicule anyone.

Thank you for enlightening us all by pointing out that there isn’t any By-law or rule regarding this matter and if one is needed I’m sure we will be seeing something soon which should be presented to the general membership at convention regarding this matter. I will allow the members of the ASPC/AMHR and those paid convention goers the opportunity to discuss it just like we are doing here today, discussing this proposal that has been brought forward. That’s a good thing for all.

Again, Thanks Ray for your input on many of these subject matters. I know your job isn’t an easy one.

Karen


----------



## Minimor (Jul 16, 2010)

"inappropriate"--yes, that is a much better word.

As I said, inferior isn't the word I would use, but it's a word some seem to like. Really, though, by calling these horses inferior, it's not saying anything, either, for others that these "inferior" horses show against & often win over.

Rather than inferior, they are inappropriate for NSPR and perhaps for ASPC competition. They aren't even eligible for ASPR registration unless they are registered Shetlands.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 16, 2010)

Minimor said:


> \
> 
> All this talk about and pointing fingers at horses that seem to be inferior. Keep in mind that I wouldn't personally use the word "inferior" to describe them, but that's how some want to call them, so that is the word I will use here. * Perhaps some of these horses are inferior when it comes to competing in the Shetland ring, and perhaps some of them are inferior when it comes to competing as a National Show Pony, but a good many of them are WINNING in the AMHR ring. So, I ask you this--when you have inferior ponies winning AMHR classes, what does that say about things???*
> 
> \


Who said that the ASPC ponies showing as AMHR minis were inferior? I have 3 in my barn for training. 1 has 2 HOFs in AMHR and ASPC halter, 1 is well on his way, and the other is just getting started. Showing ASPC ponis as AMHR minis is just the same as showing my ASPC ponies as Hunter or Pleasure ponies in Pinto. It's another avenue to show and promote your horse.

Oh and as far as the arguement that the little ponies can't beat the bigger ponies. That's a load of BS. My over ponies get beat regularly by double registered ponies.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 16, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> Desiree, it appears we were typing at the same time. I think I addressed most of your same issues in my reply above. All I can say is, I'm sorry you have spent so much money on a foal that you yourself consider inferior. Your words, not mine.
> 
> We all have opinions and concerns. Yours is as valid as mine. And vise-versa.


True fully, yes. I would consider my grade foal out of Multiple Champion bloodlines on BOTH sides worthless if she had no papers. What am I supposed to do with a horse created to be my ultimate MINIATURE show horse that I am no longer able to show? I'd have a small pony with no papers. What would YOU do with a paperless pony?

And again I don't feel a mini could compete against a Show Pony. I did not want to breed a show pony. I bred a MINIATURE HORSE.

Just a little sour grapes. I'm not upset with YOU


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 16, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> Ashley, I REALLY AM trying to understand your rationale, and not just be arguementive. BUT, you have again overlooked several points. First of all, as I mentioned, almost everyone agrees that there needs to be some tweaking, like extending the deadline farther than 2011. Maybe 2012 or even 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


'

I totally disagree - she maybe eligible for the Show Pony Registry - but she will not be able to compete. As it stands, the ASPR registry follows most of the Modern Pony rules and if you haven't seen a Modern Pony move - you do not understand that your statement is in error. Even my Classic ponies cannot compete under the current rules as and ASPR pony, even though they are eligible to be registered.

NOW - if you want to start sending in rule proposals and changes - that will take many years to complete the ASPR section - then they really cannot compete - I DID NOT SAY they couldn't be registered - they cannot compete. So please re-assess your comments about "They can go to the ASPR registry".

Thanks!


----------



## Minimor (Jul 16, 2010)

Carin - songcatcher is saying that because owners don't want to show their ASPC/AMHR horses as Shetlands they must be inferior...and if someone doesn't want to show their AMHR horse as a show pony then it must be inferior. My post above was in response to that.

I KNOW that the ASPC/AMHR horses can be competitive as Shetlands, or at least some of them can. I also know that some of them are not suitable for showing as Shetlands--just because some do well in Shetland classes doesn't mean they all do. I'm not saying those are inferior, they just don't fit into the type--they are essentially Miniatures and just don't do well as Shetlands. Their owners have tried showing them as Shetlands, and they don't do anything in that ring. * That doesn't make them inferior, and I don't like seeing anyone refer to them as such.*


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 16, 2010)

Lots of issues brought up in several posts here and a lot of it does really begin to make sense to me. First of all let me say that I have NO personal knowledge of the Show Ponies (NSPR? ASPR?) My statements are based entirely on earlier (unrelated) threads complaining about AMHA oversize horses not having a place in the registry and when brought up about R horses going over 38, some people responded emphatically that they did have a place to go as they could be registered as Show Ponies. I understand the concept of being inappropriate as opposed to inferior. Sometimes it takes a lot of head banging to get a point across/through. 






 

Belinda pointed out that she wanted to hear people's ideas on this proposal so that changes could be made when it came up to be voted on. I have stated my ideas and other people have stated their ideas. My preference is TOTW and not raise the height because I prefer small. If they change the measurement to TOTW and raise the heights, I can live with that and be perfectly content. If they leave it the way it is, I can live with that (even though I think it is misleading).

 

Either way, I will continue to breed for the smallest correctly proportioned horse I can. They make me happy regardless of what lable they have on them.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 16, 2010)

I hope what I have to say will not shut this thread, but this is a prime example.

Last year I gelded my B stallion. Who has shown since he was a yearling in 2001. During that time he was won an AMHR National Title, over a dozen Top Tens at Nationals, has 11 measurement cards, shown against 408 other horses, in over 100 classes, under 50+ judges and is 1 point from HOF.

Because of sour grapes, he was protested. He was been measured in two weeks earlier at the first show of the season and at the second qualifying show was involved in a protest. He was measured at (we will say one inch over the limit). For 8 months this protest was tied up, during that time he was not allowed to attend Mini Nationals (of which he was fully qualified to attend). When he was finally remeasured by the association, he was not found to be over 38. I received a letter stating please enjoy showing your miniature.

At the remeasurement, I asked to have a measurement off the top of the wither, sine thee was a rumor he was 39.5 tall. Well he measured 39 exact on top of the high withers.

So how would this effect this pony (AMHR only).

At the actual protest I was told to just show him shetland. HE IS NOT A SHETLAND, NOR HAS ASPC PAPERS. Am I to throw away the last 9 years I invested in my only mini?

Tired of the BS, I had no problem registering him as a NSPR, but was told by the registry he could not be registered without DNA. Well both of his AMHA parents deceased, no dna since they were grandfathered in. I would not mind taking him to Congress to show, but can't even do that. What would you do?


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 16, 2010)

Minimor said:


> Carin - songcatcher is saying that because owners don't want to show their ASPC/AMHR horses as Shetlands they must be inferior...and if someone doesn't want to show their AMHR horse as a show pony then it must be inferior. My post above was in response to that.
> 
> I KNOW that the ASPC/AMHR horses can be competitive as Shetlands, or at least some of them can. I also know that some of them are not suitable for showing as Shetlands--just because some do well in Shetland classes doesn't mean they all do. I'm not saying those are inferior, they just don't fit into the type--they are essentially Miniatures and just don't do well as Shetlands. Their owners have tried showing them as Shetlands, and they don't do anything in that ring. * That doesn't make them inferior, and I don't like seeing anyone refer to them as such.*


Minimor, this is at least the second time in the last month or so that you have misquoted me and I resent it. Let me explain for myself what I mean and quit accusing me of something I did not say. Their have been previous posts on this thread where OWNERS of small Shetlands have said that their horses just could not compete in the Shetland classes. That was not me. I was simply making reference to their posts.

 

I am beginning to lose respect for you big time. That is a shame as I used to really value your posts.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 16, 2010)

I forgot to mention when I spoke with the home office, it was suggested that if I could not register him I could dna him and register his foals. He is a gelding now.

He was also leased so that a 4 year old would have a leadline pony and eventually a youth halter pony. But now does not want to have her child's pony (sorry I dislike typing mini) yanked away from her or protested due to sour grapes because the mother also wants to show him too.

Because of the controversy that was settled by the association, there will always be sour grapes and someone going after papers and height because they don't want competition.

I agree proper measurements being performed. When there is a variance of 3 inches in two weeks, some measuring sticks need to be validated to make sure they are correct.


----------



## alphahorses (Jul 16, 2010)

horsehug said:


> Excellent excellent posts..... both Kim and Getitia!!
> 
> Susan O.


Ditto





(Refers to posts #165 and #167)


----------



## LaVern (Jul 16, 2010)

I have to change my vote. Not because I don't think that measuring at the withers is more accurate and easier, but because after reading all the posts a couple times,I think it would just be a mess. I had looked at it too simplistically. There are far reaching consequences that I had not considered.

But, this is what is so great about brainstorming and getting things out there, had I gone to convention and voted without all your knowledge, I perhaps would have voted to change the way we measure and the ramifications down the line could be great.

I now feel that we should leave things the way they are. From the bottom of my heart I thank Lisa for brining this to our attention and Belinda for being so forthright.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 16, 2010)

muffntuf said:


> '
> 
> I totally disagree - she maybe eligible for the Show Pony Registry - but she will not be able to compete. As it stands, the ASPR registry follows most of the Modern Pony rules and if you haven't seen a Modern Pony move - you do not understand that your statement is in error. Even my Classic ponies cannot compete under the current rules as and ASPR pony, even though they are eligible to be registered.
> 
> ...


I am going to reply to my own post here and give you the introduction for the ASPR out of the rulebook - I was mistaken, if the AMHR is only AMHR, it is not eligible to be an ASPR. If it is ASPC/AMHR registered, it is:

SECTION VIII

AMERICAN SHOW PONY REGISTRY

Part 1 – Eligibility

*Any pony that is registered with the American Shetland*

*Pony Club, the Hackney Horse Society or any pony that is the*

*result of the mating of a registered Shetland and a registered*

*Hackney Pony, any pony that is the result of the mating of a*

*registered Shetland and a registered American Show Pony, any*

*pony that is the result of the mating of a registered Hackney*

*and a registered American Show Pony, or any pony that is the*

*result of the mating of a registered American Show Pony to an*

*American Show Pony is eligible to be recorded in the stud book*

*of the ASPR upon the completion of an application for*

*registration and submission of the appropriate fee.*


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 16, 2010)

The registry is the National Show Pony Registry. This is a performance only division. I show in this division and proudly state that I have shetlands and show ponies. There's would have to be a huge overhaul of the program to allow oversize minis.

Currently registration depends upon a dna sample. That is to prove it is an offspring to the dna'ed parents, of which AMHR does not require.

Perhaps if they opened it to any horse currently holding registration papers being able to be registered, this may work. But there are no halter classes for this division.


----------



## Devon (Jul 16, 2010)

Minimor said:


> I wasn't going to say this, but I guess I will after all.
> 
> All this talk about and pointing fingers at horses that seem to be inferior. Keep in mind that I wouldn't personally use the word "inferior" to describe them, but that's how some want to call them, so that is the word I will use here. * Perhaps some of these horses are inferior when it comes to competing in the Shetland ring, and perhaps some of them are inferior when it comes to competing as a National Show Pony, but a good many of them are WINNING in the AMHR ring. So, I ask you this--when you have inferior ponies winning AMHR classes, what does that say about things???*
> 
> ...


That is kind of how I feel about this whole thing being it has no real point other then maybe accuracy but probably not.. and "everyone else does it"..


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 16, 2010)

muffntuf said:


> I am going to reply to my own post here and give you the introduction for the ASPR out of the rulebook - I was mistaken, if the AMHR is only AMHR, it is not eligible to be an ASPR. If it is ASPC/AMHR registered, it is:
> 
> SECTION VIII
> 
> ...


Thank you Muffntuff and Crabtree Farm for your explanations. This is certainly a contradiction to what I have heard "B" size breeders state on other threads in justifying R over A because A had no place for oversize horses. But, you have the proof and I accept it. That certainly does give more credence to the concern for taller horses being lost.

In regards to others claiming that I said smaller horses are inferior, That is in no way true. I breed for smaller and I support the smaller. And, that does not mean that I don't respect those who prefer the taller ones either. "I like coffee, you like tea." So what.


----------



## R3 (Jul 16, 2010)

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the IDEA of measuring at the Top of the Withers (TOTW). Belinda showed us a proposal that is currently IN DRAFT FORM (not necessarily a ‘final’ version), and asked for feedback. This is our opportunity to state what we like or dislike about the idea, as presented, to ‘tweak’ what she has, to offer ideas that might be totally different, or to state that we want measuring to stay the same as it always has been and give our reasons why.

I think that some folks have not read all of the ideas that have been presented in these 20+ pages; which is fully understandable, since it is almost as much as a book now, LOL, and have the wrong idea about what it would or wouldn’t do. Some of the concerns are ‘fixable’ by Grandfathering, which is included in the proposal that Belinda presented. Other things are ones that need to be discussed, and all opinions shared, both pro and con.

As I said before, I have supported the idea of measuring at the top of the withers for some time, and have proposed a similar thing in AMHA. I can assure you that when I was proposing it there, it had absolutely nothing to do with tall vs. short, AMHA/AMHR, AMHR/ASPC or showing of Shetlands, or any of those other ‘over-tones’ that have been injected into this discussion. It didn’t have anything to do with thinking that taller horses were inferior in any way. I just simply wanted to have our ‘horses’ measured like ‘horses’, and for me, that it not increase the size of the horses in the registry.

I come from a long history of ‘big’ horses, and where we measure miniatures makes no sense to me at all. It is totally arbitrary. Every time I tell my ‘big’ horse friends how we measure, they give me a funny look and ask if I’m serious… But, beyond measuring at the Last Hair of the Mane (LHOTHM) being an arbitrary, non-HORSE, way of measuring, I don’t believe it a good way to do things. As has already been said on this topic; we are the only type of ‘horse’ in the world that can ‘grow’ because it got a bad haircut (someone slipped with the clippers and took off some mane hair).

I think it is reasonable to say, based on all the comments, that there is hardly anyone agrees with the proposal as it is currently written. I have already suggested one alternate idea (on page 10) but now I’m going to present another for review and comment. I will start another topic with this new, unofficial, 'proposal' for suggestions and comments. This thread is getting so long, that ‘tweaks’ to the original proposal are getting lost in the volume and not getting commented on.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 16, 2010)

muffntuf said:


> '
> 
> I totally disagree - she maybe eligible for the Show Pony Registry - but she will not be able to compete. As it stands, the ASPR registry follows most of the Modern Pony rules and if you haven't seen a Modern Pony move - you do not understand that your statement is in error. Even my Classic ponies cannot compete under the current rules as and ASPR pony, even though they are eligible to be registered.
> 
> Thanks!


This is very off subject but Trace you are not fully correct.. I brought this up at Convention.. there are areas that do not have actual ASPR ponies (meaning what the division was intended for) and in those areas it is only a matter of time until a pony/ponies who has gone over their height divison will register into ASPR and show there and being they are the only ones will of course win and be competitive (amongst themselves)

Of course in a area with established ASPR ponies that will not happen but again with so few ASPR ponies even registered many places simply do not have them or have only one ect.

I know why they opened it up and understand the intent behind it but as with everything those who are out to do whatever it takes for that.50 cent ribbon will take advantage of that situation but you can not rule or

regulate morals and ethics....

However in addition to all ofthat I do think often when people say show pony registry they are not understanding the difference between the ASPR and the NSPR


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Jul 16, 2010)

I don't have a lot of horses so maybe I shouldn't really have a say. There are folks that have 50-100 or more horses and they will be impacted at a greater rate for a longer time than someone as myself. But, without totally oversimplifying things, aren't most of us concerned about the same thing? The future value of our horses?

Regardless of size, those of us that show or sell to homes that show, we all know the height is a HUGE deal. It doesn't matter if your horse is A sized, B sized or one of the taller pony registrations, it's the same. You constantly fear the thought of your horse measuring up into the next class (and wow, certainly God forbid, the next division) because now you are competing against horses that are much taller and we all know, with everything else being equal, the taller horse usually wins. It does NOT matter if it's Raven, who under the current rules measures 27.5" or if it's a B sized AMHR horse that currently measures 37.5". *We have the same fears. * We all try to have our horse be as tall as possible FOR THE SPECIFIC CLASS they are showing in. So if Raven now has to show in 28-30" we all know she'll actually being showing against horses probably as tall as 31" and those THREE INCHES will make a difference.

And, again thinking of myself, what about my mares that are currently 34" (or close to) and are double registered? Six years from now, when this has been in place for a few years, who is going to buy those mares? Again, we try to produce the tallest possible without going over a certain number. For me that number, for my breeding mares, has been 34". I love the tinies, but I know that what sells is more leg so I have SEVERAL broodmares that push that 34" mark - hoping to add some leg to a few of my babies that I sell and then keep the tiniers ones for myself. What happens when it's time to sell those mares?

Again, I believe most of our fears are the same - the future value of our show and breeding stock. All I ask those putting their time and effort into the proposal is to think into the future. Really look hard at the LONG TERM implications of the proposal. And then those that vote do the same. Don't shoot from the hip; give it real thought.

We all just want our horses to continue to increase in value, not go the other direction. Simple really.


----------



## REO (Jul 16, 2010)

Freeland, I said if AMHA followed suit. In AMHA you can't say so what, they'll just be Bs now. They're out.





Speaking in general and not to anyone specific:

I don't understand why raising the height two inches is so bad. READ CAREFULLY THE FOLLOWING.

If I have a 10 year old mare that is 32" at the last mane hairs, and it is changed to measure at the top of the withers, and she is now "34". Her height wasn't raised! She's the same horse. She's the same height she always was. She didn't grow. If the height was raised 2" they would still be the same horses, the same height they already were. So how is that raising the height and letting bigger horses in? If it measures within the limit HONESTLY no matter where it's measured, then what's the big deal about raising the height to allow for the withers? That is allowing for the withers on the same horse, not allowing a taller horse in.

If you have breeding horses that are grandfathered in, but are now thought of as "over", what happens when you want to sell them? No one will want to buy them. That's what I'm talking about.

The people that push for it are the people that won't be affected or will be affected the least. But MANY people will be hurt, devastated or wiped out. It may not happen right away but it would happen and the outward ripple would be huge. (In AMHR but mostly in AMHA)I was trying to make people think. Because it may not happen to you, doesn't mean it won't happen to other people. I care not only for myself, I also care about everyone who love these special smaller equine.

I'm not speaking against people, I'm trying to make people think.



You can't think only of "let's do this" you also need to think of "what will happen in the long run IF we do this?"

Do this without raising the height to allow for the withers, you devastate many people and horses. Do it and allow for the withers (raise height) the horses did not magically get taller!

You never see me speaking "in public" this way. I'm shy and it scares me. But this time I had to speak.


----------



## R3 (Jul 16, 2010)

If the height is increased by 2 inches, it DOES ultimately increase the size of the horses in the registry. The reason has been stated before, earlier in this topic, but probably lost in all of these pages...

"...even though an INDIVIDUAL horse won’t actually be any taller when you measure it from the TOTW, on a collective level, you do risk raising the overall height of horses being registered in an organization by raising the allowed height of the registry, even when changing the measuring point. This is because most likely they will want to raise the limit by enough to take in ALL the currently registered horses. Some will only be a half inch taller; others may be as much as two inches taller. So, where do you decide where the new limit will be? Do you raise it by the ‘average’ amount, or the upper amount? If you go with the ‘average’, you will have a significant number of horses who will lose their papers. If you raise it by the upper limit, then you have raised it higher than the average, so are in effect allowing the overall height of the registry to increase."


----------



## alphahorses (Jul 16, 2010)

R3 said:


> If the height is increased by 2 inches, it DOES ultimately increase the size of the horses in the registry. The reason has been stated before, earlier in this topic, but probably lost in all of these pages...
> 
> "...even though an INDIVIDUAL horse won’t actually be any taller when you measure it from the TOTW, on a collective level, you do risk raising the overall height of horses being registered in an organization by raising the allowed height of the registry, even when changing the measuring point. This is because most likely they will want to raise the limit by enough to take in ALL the currently registered horses. Some will only be a half inch taller; others may be as much as two inches taller. So, where do you decide where the new limit will be? Do you raise it by the ‘average’ amount, or the upper amount? If you go with the ‘average’, you will have a significant number of horses who will lose their papers. If you raise it by the upper limit, then you have raised it higher than the average, so are in effect allowing the overall height of the registry to increase."


Someone made a proposal at the beginning this thread to use AMHR Nationals to mathematically determine how much the heights would have to be raised. It was a good idea.

But even if we were to raise it by 2" and it allowed more horses into the registery, how is that a bad thing? Smaller is not better in AMHR. It would bring more revenue to the registry and potentially increase revenue for shows. It does not make the miniature horse any less valuable. People are still going to purchase based on quality and how the animal fits into their personal goals.


----------



## alphahorses (Jul 16, 2010)

R3 said:


> The purpose of this thread is to discuss the IDEA of measuring at the Top of the Withers (TOTW). Belinda showed us a proposal that is currently IN DRAFT FORM (not necessarily a ‘final’ version), and asked for feedback.


I might be off here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I know proposals can be amended before they go to the BOD after discussion at Convention, but I thought the proposals that will go to Convention had to be in "final" version by July 1?


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 16, 2010)

R3 said:


> The purpose of this thread is to discuss the IDEA of measuring at the Top of the Withers (TOTW). Belinda showed us a proposal that is currently IN DRAFT FORM (not necessarily a ‘final’ version), and asked for feedback. This is our opportunity to state what we like or dislike about the idea, as presented, to ‘tweak’ what she has, to offer ideas that might be totally different, or to state that we want measuring to stay the same as it always has been and give our reasons why.


Actually it is not a draft. All proposal were due on July 1st to the appropriate committee. The author, if present (or if can be reached by phone), can amend the proposal at the time of discussion - but its not a draft at this point, it has been submitted.

Just to clarify.


----------



## R3 (Jul 16, 2010)

Thanks for the clarification. It works the same way in AMHA, once it has been officially submitted, only the person who wrote the proposal can change the wording.

I guess since Belinda submitted it, and is asking for comment, that she can still change it, so people's input on this topic can still make an impact on the final language.

In AMHR, can the language be changed during the Meeting, or is it like AMHA, that once the written proposal makes it to the floor at the Annual meeting for debate that no changes can be made before it is voted on?


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 16, 2010)

It can be amended at the time of discussion if the person is present (or by phone, which happened last year on a proposal). I am still looking to see if the on the phone is allowed.


----------



## REO (Jul 16, 2010)

No, I understood that before. I guess my way of thinking is..Taller horses *usually* have taller withers (no, not all) but most. So very few would actually BE taller. And how would you (in general) who have a smaller size breeding programs be affected by those that were slightly taller at their backs because they had small withers? I mean, if someone takes pride in their under 34" or under 32" or under 30" breeding programs, why would what other people do affect YOU? Why would that change? (you in general LOL) I have my program with what I like and what other people chose to do is fine with me, even if it's not what I do. I guess I don't understand why some, knowing it would affect & hurt many, push for something that doesn't affect them one way or the other. All could be cleared up IMO if the current rules of measuring at shows were ENFORCED. The only ones hurt then would be the taller outsized horses.

I've had my say and I'm glad I did,




even if no one cares about my opinion.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 16, 2010)

> Let me explain for myself what I mean and quit accusing me of something I did not say. Their have been previous posts on this thread where OWNERS of small Shetlands have said that their horses just could not compete in the Shetland classes. That was not me. I was simply making reference to their posts.


 Yes, I know--they said their horses could not compete as Shetlands, and you turned that into their horses being INFERIOR. I did not misquote you at all--you are the one that introduced that word inferior!
I have a pony that is Foundation. He has done very well as a Foundation gelding; he wouldn't do as well in Classic--but that doesn't make him inferior, that just means he is a different type. I have country pleasure type horses and I have pleasure driving type horses...the first isn't inferior to the second, even though the first wouldn't do so well in a pleasure driving class....they're just different! My western type Morgans would have been also-rans in a Park horse class, while my park type gelding would have looked silly in western pleasure...is one inferior to the other since they would be non-competitive if they swapped divisions? No.

And quite frankly I could care less if you respect me or not; I lost ALL respect for you the moment that you made "non-competitive" into "inferior".

I don't see that increasing the size and measuring at the withers would overall increase size in the breed. In most cases horses wouldn't be any taller then than they are now--because already people are breeding 38" at the last mane hair, which means these horses are likely to be 39 or 40" at the withers--so by increasing height to 39" or 40" at TOTW, you're not going to get too many extra horses--other than some that are taller with mutton withers that would currently measure 39" at the last mane hairs...and I'd bet that there are already plenty of those being used for breeding anyway!


----------



## horsehug (Jul 16, 2010)

Robin (REO)

I agreed with you before and I still do.

I am against changing it. If it sets our little horses apart, that is fine with me, as I think they are special and unique in so many ways, and I am proud of that!

Susan O.


----------



## LaVern (Jul 16, 2010)

REO

Posted Today, 01:51 PM

Freeland, I said if AMHA followed suit. In AMHA you can't say so what, they'll just be Bs now. They're out. 

Speaking in general and not to anyone specific:

I don't understand why raising the height two inches is so bad. READ CAREFULLY THE FOLLOWING.

If I have a 10 year old mare that is 32" at the last mane hairs, and it is changed to measure at the top of the withers, and she is now "34". Her height wasn't raised! She's the same horse. She's the same height she always was. She didn't grow. If the height was raised 2" they would still be the same horses, the same height they already were. So how is that raising the height and letting bigger horses in? If it measures within the limit HONESTLY no matter where it's measured, then what's the big deal about raising the height to allow for the withers? That is allowing for the withers on the same horse, not allowing a taller horse in.

If you have breeding horses that are grandfathered in, but are now thought of as "over", what happens when you want to sell them? No one will want to buy them. That's what I'm talking about.

The people that push for it are the people that won't be affected or will be affected the least. But MANY people will be hurt, devastated or wiped out. It may not happen right away but it would happen and the outward ripple would be huge. (In AMHR but mostly in AMHA)I was trying to make people think. Because it may not happen to you, doesn't mean it won't happen to other people. I care not only for myself, I also care about everyone who love these special smaller equine.

I'm not speaking against people, I'm trying to make people think. You can't think only of "let's do this" you also need to think of "what will happen in the long run IF we do this?"

Do this without raising the height to allow for the withers, you devastate many people and horses. Do it and allow for the withers (raise height) the horses did not magically get taller!

You never see me speaking "in public" this way. I'm shy and it scares me. But this time I had to speak.

My response from above quote.

I don't think many in AMHR dare say Just a B anymore.


----------



## Sandee (Jul 16, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> ......
> 
> ........ The ones that will be most affected by this is of course the owners of the 37-38 inch LHOTM horses that will go over at the withers. Will those horses lose value? If you feel they are inferior to the Show Ponies, yes.
> 
> ...


Don't those two statements go against each other. Ok so you're not "kicking" them out but and yet you are leaving them no place to show.

My "B", and other small Shetlands, can't compete in Shetland for the same reason 32" horses really can't compete against 34" , in general. Judges are looking for more action or better build and these smaller guys don't, again -usually, have it.


----------



## REO (Jul 16, 2010)

Aw no LaVern! I meant that as something *some* people would say. Not ME though, I LOVE the Bs!





I was just telling a friend the other day how much I loved them.

So sorry. I know you don't like it said that way. I was demonstrating who some people's attitudes are. Forgive me please!





I admire those who try to improve things. I'm not speaking against that. But I'm just trying to make people see the bad that would, in the everyday lives of people and their horses, happen because of the actions of good intentioned people that they might not have thought of.


----------



## Capall Beag IRL (Jul 16, 2010)

Here in Ireland we have very recently started our own stud book - ALL minia are measured on the withers - including the AMHA ones that have been overstamped into our stud book.

this is causing great problems with showing in Ireland with a number of AMHA horses being over height for our classes but the owners still enter them and then give you heck if you speak up against it.

it will make things so much easier if ALL minis are measured on the withers


----------



## HGFarm (Jul 16, 2010)

I think if they are going to change the place of measurement from the current standards that have been in place for years, the inches allowed should be adjusted to be consistant with what has been bred for in the past.

Some flat backed horses dont have a lot of difference but I have seen many who had a difference of up to 2" in height measuring in the two different ways.


----------



## LaVern (Jul 16, 2010)

REO You are forgiven. I have been know to let the dreaded J word slip a time or two also.


----------



## Belinda (Jul 16, 2010)

Bob

Just to correct my earlier post to you , and as of Yet I have still not recieved my packet from the office, But yes there is a proposal to measure at the base of the wither ????? So just thought I would retract my statement before everyone thought I was crazy !!!! <LOL>> Oh wait we all know I am crazy , LOL <<






But anyway I am at a show trying to make a living this weekend so you all have a great discussion and remember PLAY NICE !!


----------



## Songcatcher (Jul 16, 2010)

REO said:


> .
> 
> I've had my say and I'm glad I did,
> 
> ...


Robin, the other points in your post have allready been commented on by others, so I will skip them. I just want to say that you have as much right to express your opinions here as anyone else, whether anyone else cares about it or agrees with you or not. I see some of your points. Some I agree with and some I don't. I still respect you either way.


----------



## REO (Jul 16, 2010)

Thank you Freeland





And thanks to the people who PMed and emailed me. Not all people will ever agree on everything, but it's nice to know some feel the same way I do!


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 16, 2010)

Capall Beag IRL said:


> Here in Ireland we have very recently started our own stud book - ALL minia are measured on the withers - including the AMHA ones that have been overstamped into our stud book.
> 
> this is causing great problems with showing in Ireland with a number of AMHA horses being over height for our classes but the owners still enter them and then give you heck if you speak up against it.
> 
> it will make things so much easier if ALL minis are measured on the withers


I must say this is very disappointing to hear.

So the new registry simply sat on the 34" maximum, even tho' they measure at the whithers? That is too bad..._this new registry had a chance to get it right_...and didn't take it, instead, KNOWINGLY punishing horses that are officially safe under AMHA rules, that people have, I am sure, spent a lot of money importing from North America. Personally, I would be one of those entering my "over" horses, and would continue to fight this new registry until my registered horses were recognised. You guys are only hurting yourseves by having done this.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 17, 2010)

Minimor said:


> Desiree, do you mean specifically the Modern shetlands, or just "modern type" as in any Shetland? Because it isn't just the Modern Shetlands that have high withers. I know a few Arenosas, who are Classic ponies through and through (not to mention they are also AMHR and come from several generations of AMHR registered ponies), that have very prominent withers, and they have 2" difference in height between last mane hair and top of withers. Some that measure 38" as AMHR measure 40" or 40.25" when they are measured as a pony...so anyone that is breeding those horses and getting foals of a similar height is going to be out of luck starting in 2011 if this rule change goes through as it is. Some of these horses are owned by some very prominent breeders--while I don't have that particular breeding in my ponies, I think it will be kind of a shame to see some of those horses disappear from AMHR in terms of breeding. And I do feel bad for those breeders who may suddenly and unexpectedly find themselves with some unregistrable foals--foals they might not have bred for in some cases had they known that the height limit was going to drop so drastically in 2011.


I just wanted to clarify, that I said Moderns particularly because they usually have the highest withers. The conformation that allows for them to move so extreme, often has a high set wither. I know this is not always the case, and I do agree that this rule will have a huge impact on ALL horses, especially the large B size ones.


----------



## Capall Beag IRL (Jul 17, 2010)

Hi Sue C

at shows in Ireland there ARE NO AMHA shows, so no AMHA rules.

all of our shows ( for all sizes of horses) are measured on the withers

some of these horses have been bought as mature horses - so they knew buying them that they were too tall

so thats like saying at an AMHA show in the USA that someone with a AMHR horse who is 35" tall should be allowed to show in AMHA classes at 34"

and the rules should be adjusted to suit those who do - we do have classes for these horses but its called a section B class 34"-38" on the withers

and if an AMHA horse is re-registered in the new Irish stud book then they agree to abid by all of our rules - if they dont like it they dont

have to join, they have that choice. Our stud book is overseen by the Irish government so things have to be handled properly.

and we like to think of it as getting the balance right, with all the other socities all over the world having their own problems

after all minis are a height breed and if you cant get that right then your just wasting everybodies time and money


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 17, 2010)

> we do have classes for these horses but its called a section B class 34"-38" on the withers


Ahhh, but you didn't clarify that in your original post. I (we) were left to think that these horses would lose all rights to any registration, and couldn't be shown...which is CLEARLY a different matter.



> Our stud book is overseen by the Irish government so things have to be handled properly.


Good Lord, that's ALL we need, the Governments nose into our business; a bunch of beurocrats who don't know a horse from a hole in the ground, telling us how to manage our horses... I cannot ever seeing that being successful here. North America is just too big to be Departmentalized, for our horses/farms/stables run that way. It would cost a FORTUNE to manage, what with such a large area and so many people and horses to monitor...O-M-G-!

Just had to mention this too, from your site.



> we do not use an AMHA stallion so we are free from the many known genetic defects associated with these miniature horses,including deafness & dwarfism, to name but two.
> 
> already a number of dwarf minis have been bred in Ireland by AMHA stallions.
> 
> ...


I find it odd that you think only the AMHA/AMHR STALLIONS carry dwarfism? You do have at least one AMHA/AMHR mare...what if SHE carries it. and...to infer that 50% of the American miniatures carry this gene is IMO, very far-fetched. If it were so, we would have a heck of a lot more dwarves born to our horses. Thankfully, none of them born on my farm. I for one, take HUGE offence.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 17, 2010)

This thread has gotten so off topic so I apologize for continuing that but I am curious.. all the litle ponies we see in Europe be they shetlands.. or whatever you would like to call them..the tiny horses the same size as our minis.. do you not have dwarfisim over there when breeding them?

I never really even thought about it before


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 17, 2010)

> do you not have dwarfisim over there when breeding them?


I would be very surprised to hear there hasn't been...many of the ones I remember seeing years ago showed signs of it, very short stumpy legs, long backs, very short thick necks, HUGE heads...I have seen a vast improvement, but there had to be dwarves. Maybe it just isn't as open a topic there, as it is becoming here.


----------



## dinno28 (Jul 18, 2010)

I decided to do a little research into horses measured as a shetland (totw) and as an AMHR miniature (LMH). Information was gathered from the Sale of the Century listing link and can be viewed at http://www.whirlwindproduction.com/auction/century/

20 animals were measured as both a miniature and as a shetland by AMHR/ASPC President Larry Parnell. Measurements were in full view of the public and webcast live online, Several board members were also in attendance. The largest difference in measurement was 3 inches

(lot 1 Wall Street Rock E The Rock totw- 40.25, lmh-37.25, and lot #20 Wall Street Rock E Rock on totw-41", lmh-38")and the smallest difference in measurement was .75" (lot #38 Wall Street Rock E Rock on Lisa E totw-38", lmh-37.25").

Of the 20 animals legally measured and eligible for AMHR registration only 5 would measure 38 or under if the proposed charge were to go into effect. The average ASPC measurement was 39.0375(totw) and the average AMHR measurement was 37.425(lmh) with an average difference of 1.6125".

horses/ponies are listed below with the first measurement being top of the withers and second measurement being the last mane hair:

lot 1 Wall Street ROck E The Rock 40.25" totw, 37.25" lmh

lot 5 Michigan's Distinct Image 39.5" totw, 38" lmh

lot 6 Wall Street Navigator's First Shot 37" totw, 35.25" lmh

lot 8 Wall Street Rock E Red Red Hot 39" totw, 37.75" lmh

lot 9 Red Rock Kids Sweet Tooth 39.5" totw, 38" lmh

lot 20 Wall Street Rock E Rock On 41" totw, 38" lmh

lot 23 Wall Street Illsions Rainy Day 39.75" totw, 38" lmh

lot 31 Wall Street Illusion's Onyx 39.5" totw, 38" lmh

lot 35 Colorful Miss Wiser 38" totw, 36.75" lmh

lot 37 Wa-Full Betty Boop 38" totw, 36.25" lmh

lot 38 Wall Street Rock E Rock on Lisa E 38" totw, 37.25" lmh

lot 42 Rhapsody's Merry Madonna 39.5" totw, 37.75" lmh

lot 44 Rhapsody In Red 39" totw, 37.25" lmh

lot 47 Wall Street Rock E Rockstar 38.5" totw, 37.5" lmh

lot 50 Rhapsody's Bound For Glory 39.25" totw, 38" lmh

lot 61 Vermilyea Farms Good as Gold 38" totw, 37" lmh

lot 65 Mccalls Lucky Lady Cody 39.25" totw, 37" lmh

lot 75 Wall Street Head's Up Phantom 39.5" totw, 38" lmh

lot 84 Wall Street Rock E Harryetta Potter 39" totw, 37.5" lmh

lot 87 Wall Street Illusion Chrystal Charmed 39.5" totw, 37.5" lmh

Unless there is an adjustment to our current height divisions (ie 36"-40" for the over division, and 36" and under for the under division) I cannot support this proposal. From this sample we would we would be shrinking the average miniature height by 1.6"

At a time when our registry is operating in the red and new registrations are significantly down. Passing a proposal that would strongly discourage the breeding of mares and stallions that currently legally measure 36.5"-38" can not be seen as fiscally responsible. Not to mention the reduction in the genetic pool.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Jul 18, 2010)

dinno28, what a great fact filled post!




It is sad to even think how many horses/ponies this will effect in a negative way.


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 18, 2010)

Thank you for taking the time to compile that information from one of the most influential farms in the United States. This totally supports my theory that this would in effect, hurt our registry as well as possibly leave thousands of B sized miniatures in the cold.

I cannot support either this proposed measurement or any other that would not include a height adjustment. And I cannot support a grandfathering clause as that would be too hard to figure out in 5 years who is covered and who is not. I can see a lot of interesting situations coming up with either proposal.


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Jul 18, 2010)

dinno28 said:


> I decided to do a little research into horses measured as a shetland (totw) and as an AMHR miniature (LMH). Information was gathered from the Sale of the Century listing link and can be viewed at http://www.whirlwindproduction.com/auction/century/
> 
> 20 animals were measured as both a miniature and as a shetland by AMHR/ASPC President Larry Parnell. Measurements were in full view of the public and webcast live online, Several board members were also in attendance. The largest difference in measurement was 3 inches
> 
> ...


What an awesome idea- that's very interesting!

Now, I did an informal measurement of all my Minis yesterday (over 30 of them!) and this morning. It wasn't as "accurate" as a show/sale measurement, I just wanted to get a general idea. All of the "purebred" Minis measured between 3/4 and 1" taller at the withers. All of the ASPC/AMHR Minis measured about 1.5" tall at the withers. I would have several B only minis measure out.

So I couldn't support this rule change either, unless they raise the height limits.

But I would get one advantage if they would raise the limits- my show gelding is right over 34" tall. If they raise the limit to 36", he would become an A- as it is he is normally the smallest horse in his classes.

Lucy


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 18, 2010)

I am a bit confused on one thing.. I keep hearing talk of bringing more blood into the minis more new blood.. isnt the ASPC gene pool MUCH smaller then the mini one?


----------



## muffntuf (Jul 18, 2010)

I think that is off topic for this measurement proposal thread.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 18, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> I am a bit confused on one thing.. I keep hearing talk of bringing more blood into the minis more new blood.. isnt the ASPC gene pool MUCH smaller then the mini one?


Don't confuse registration numbers with genetics. The miniature horse has been inbred profusely, shrinking its gene pool. The shetland has been outcrossed expanding its genetics. While there are definitely more miniatures in the world than shetlands, the shetlands have a much larger gene pool which is why you see less deformaties.


----------



## OhHorsePee (Jul 18, 2010)

~Lisa~ said:


> I am a bit confused on one thing.. I keep hearing talk of bringing more blood into the minis more new blood.. isnt the ASPC gene pool MUCH smaller then the mini one?





muffntuf said:


> I think that is off topic for this measurement proposal thread.


I agree off topic! Please let's try to keep this germane to what this thread is all about and not bait a battle.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Jul 18, 2010)

muffntuf said:


> I think that is off topic for this measurement proposal thread.


Why thank you for that Trace and Fran.. Was mearly asking a question of a statement that was posted on this thread about how much new blood ASPC is bringing into the minis. by Dinno28 whose post you all addressed



> Not to mention the reduction in the genetic pool.


So was not really taking it off topic as it was put on THIS TOPIC by someone else....

.. But thank you to the two of you for once again reminding me... .....LOVE AND LIGHT


----------



## Capall Beag IRL (Jul 18, 2010)

height is the easiest thing to correct in your breeding programme, bad genetics is much harder to fix





i believe that people have to have more respect for your type of mini whether its 30" or 36" we dont all like what other

people breed but thats just your own opinion,

what will happen when the AMHR and ASPC inter breed? what will that horse be called? and then what will happen when

they breed with AMHA horses?

next time i import any horses they will be ASPC but no doubt i will get it in the neck for bringing in SHETLANDS





which is to the BIGGEST insult that goes around over here


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (Jul 18, 2010)

Songcatcher said:


> I think we've got to decide if we want to be FAIR to everyone, or if we want to improve the breed. SOME people here have clearly stated that they believe BIGGER IS BETTER. I DISAGREE! Have any of you read the book, _Justin Morgan Had A Horse_? The original Morgan horse was considered a runt and a cull by almost everyone except Justin Morgan. He eventually prooved he could out work, out pull, out ride, and out produce much larger horses. I am not going to sit back and accept that bigger is better.


I actually agree with the rest of this post about being fair to everyone or improving the breed, but I raised an eyebrow over the Justin Morgan comparison. Really?? The whole point of that story is that pretty is as pretty does, and I don't see a whole lot of the tinies "out-pulling, out-working, or out-trotting" their larger counterparts!



I don't want "bigger," personally, but I do want "big enough." There's a difference. And to each their own anyway!







midnight star stables said:


> Except that is just NOT true! Without raising the height limit, there will be horses KICKED OUT! Not the current horses, but many current breeding stock horses will undoubtedly produce foals and stock that WILL go over.


You can't kick out a horse who was never registered in the first place.







midnight star stables said:


> And, again with out raising the height, my 33" LHOTM show horse *would be worth much less in my eyes*. Sure, she could keep showing as an "A", but likely her foals would go over, and *no body wants a horse that is just over into another division.*


I feel sort of sorry for your horse, Des.



So her only value to you is in how much she can win? I thought your horses meant more to you than that! What about Midnight and your other non-show horses? And for many of us a 35-36" horse is perfect as they have more power than the A's with a longer stride but don't seem so much like ponies as the larger B's. I like the ponies but if I want one, I'll buy a Welsh.



midnight star stables said:


> I have a AMHR only mare that is around 37-38" LHOTM who is being bred to a 38" LHOTM stallion. I have spent over $4000 on this breeding... for what a GRADE horse?! That is just plain ridiculous and I would be devastated if that were the case.


No offense, but you're already risking having a grade horse just by breeding two horses at the top of the current height range. I understand your feelings on this but let's be realistic...it's a risk we take.

Leia (who knows she should have bitten her tongue but couldn't)


----------



## disneyhorse (Jul 18, 2010)

So... your 34" last-hair-of-the-mane horse measures 35" at the withers and is now and "over"... but the horse itself didn't grow... so who cares what it's CALLED? The horse is still the same quality horse, right?

Andrea


----------



## REO (Jul 18, 2010)

I'm against changing the measuring at all, but if it changes, then I'm against not adding to it. I'm not trying to argue or stir up anything. I just can't get through my head how adding a WITHERS ALLOWANCE will let even bigger horses in. As seen in the above posts, adding a withers allowance for them, would be just adding a withers allowance.

If all of this is because measuring at the top of the withers is supposed to be the "BE ALL-END ALL" of accurate measuring then.............

*If a mutton withered horse and a tall withered horse measure EXACLY the same at the top of the withers, how is one bigger than the other?*

I hope enough people can go and vote this down.

If a horse that's measured into a show at the last mane hair can be spraddled out to measure in, so can one that's measured at the top of the withers. IMO the answer isn't changing where minis have been measured for 30 years, it's cracking down on cheaters at shows WHEN they're measured.

I still say if all this energy was directed towards cracking down on horses measured in at shows (no bullies allowed) then problem solved.





It's fine if you don't understand what I'm saying or you don't agree. But I'm being true to myself in sharing my thoughts on this, like everyone else.


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 18, 2010)

Capall Beag IRL said:


> height is the easiest thing to correct in your breeding programme, bad genetics is much harder to fix
> 
> 
> 
> ...






In this entire conversation the only PUREBREED, RECOGNIZED BREED is the ASPC shetland. AMHR and AMHA minis are still considered a HEIGHT breed.

If you cross AMHR X ASPC or AMHA X ASPC, you will have a half shetland and/or a AMHR or AMHA mini....provided of course that the ASPC had a set of AMHR or AMHA papers. The resulting foal would not have ASPC papers though. ALL of this is ALREADY HAPPENING!!!

To deny that the ASPC had any influence on todays "purebred" AMHA or AMHR minis is ridiculous and sticking your head in the sand.

I am sorry to hear that bringing in shetlands is in an insult. Perhaps, you might want to consider watching the shetland Congress online in a few weeks to get an education on the value and refined beauty of the animal that is so snubbed around the world.

Ok, done with this topic.


----------



## Minimor (Jul 18, 2010)

Carin, the sad truth is, Shetlands do seem to offend many people. I don't know what it is, but it's as if "shetland" is a dirty word for some.



> next time I import any horses they will be ASPC but no doubt i will get it in the neck for bringing in SHETLANDS which is to the BIGGEST insult that goes around over here


You know what, if you like the Shetlands and you want to import an ASPC pony (or two or three of them!) you just do it, and never mind what others around you will say about them. Because if you pick some nice ones, and you bring them in and then promote them--even if there aren't any shows that offer ASPC classes, if you can take them out to some exhibitions and put them in open classes, or just give demos with them, or just plain show them to people that come to your place to see your horses, you will find that they get a lot of attention. Many people will be surprised at what they look like--you will get people saying I'VE NEVER SEEN SHETLANDS THAT LOOK LIKE THAT BEFORE or THOSE ARE THE BEST LOOKING SHETLANDS I'VE EVER SEEN, and you will find that your ponies have quite a following!! Never mind those that would put your ponies down just because they are ponies--yes, for many people "pony" is a dirty word. People will talk and complain behind your back. If you point blank ask those people what their problem with ponies is, they probably won't be able to tell you, or at least they won't tell you--they'll just deny that they have any problem! The ponies are beautiful creatures--watch out, because if you get one of them you just might find that you are suddenly hooked on ponies!!

And yes, I speak from experience!!


----------



## Gypsygal (Jul 18, 2010)

My understanding is that the proposal is for the base of the withers - not the top of the withers. Which personally I think is as arbitrary as last hair on the main. Does anyone have the actual proposal? If I missed it somewhere in this 26 pages I am sorry.


----------



## Magic (Jul 18, 2010)

Gypsygal said:


> My understanding is that the proposal is for the base of the withers - not the top of the withers. Which personally I think is as arbitrary as last hair on the main. Does anyone have the actual proposal? If I missed it somewhere in this 26 pages I am sorry.






There are TWO proposals; one for measuring at the base of the withers and one for measuring at the top of the withers.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Jul 18, 2010)

Minimor said:


> Carin, the sad truth is, Shetlands do seem to offend many people. I don't know what it is, but it's as if "shetland" is a dirty word for some.
> 
> You know what, if you like the Shetlands and you want to import an ASPC pony (or two or three of them!) you just do it, and never mind what others around you will say about them. Because if you pick some nice ones, and you bring them in and then promote them--even if there aren't any shows that offer ASPC classes, if you can take them out to some exhibitions and put them in open classes, or just give demos with them, or just plain show them to people that come to your place to see your horses, you will find that they get a lot of attention. Many people will be surprised at what they look like--you will get people saying I'VE NEVER SEEN SHETLANDS THAT LOOK LIKE THAT BEFORE or THOSE ARE THE BEST LOOKING SHETLANDS I'VE EVER SEEN, and you will find that your ponies have quite a following!! Never mind those that would put your ponies down just because they are ponies--yes, for many people "pony" is a dirty word. People will talk and complain behind your back. If you point blank ask those people what their problem with ponies is, they probably won't be able to tell you, or at least they won't tell you--they'll just deny that they have any problem! The ponies are beautiful creatures--watch out, because if you get one of them you just might find that you are suddenly hooked on ponies!!
> 
> And yes, I speak from experience!!


I am proud to say that my farm is now shetlands and show ponies. For years I was duped into not getting a shetland. Yes, I still have a mini, but after the last time I went to nationals, I was disgusted to watch a grown woman cry (I mean bawl like a child) because those "dxxm" shetlands were winning everything.

Come on, the best conformationally correct horse did win. A lot were shetland crosses, but some were just better bred minis. I ended up getting into a couple heated debates that the association was a height registry.

But I have now gotten into the saddlebred and hackney shows and I receive a lot more respect having shetlands than minis. Just a couple of days ago I was being introduced and a friend announced that I had minis and there was a lot of chuckling. I quickly corrected him that I had shetlands and all of a sudden, the chuckling stopped and there were people asking questions and several wanted to come see my shetlands.

I ran the Stateline Tack at Petsmart and when I would mention I had minis, usually the response was "ahn how cute" or "that's nice". But to each their own.


----------



## MiniFriend (Jul 18, 2010)

Hello, I wanted to post my thoughts on this subject…

I think measuring at the withers is better than the current method because:

-it is the highest stable point

-eliminates cheating of "extending" the mane to get a shorter horse measurement

-new mini owners with horse experience are used to measuring at the withers

-it is a universally accepted way to measure

-it gives miniature horses a true height comparision to aspc ponies and other breeds

Regarding the last point,

When we call our amhr horses "miniature" …that raises the question of "miniature in height compared to what" ? Amhr is part of aspc ( and shetlands are the smallest of the pony breeds). Are amhr B horses currently "miniature" in size compared to the smallest class of aspc ponies?

At aspc shows, the Foundation/Classic Under Shetlands are only up to a maximum height of 42 inches measured at the wither.

Many have said that in order to compete successfully in the amhr B division, they breed for "just under" the maximum amhr height.

Currently, many aspc ponies up to 40 - 40.5 inches measured at the wither, will hardship amhr. At the Rock E sale, the stallion " Rock On" measured 41 inches at the wither and 38 inches mini, I believe. Many aspc/amhr compete successfully in Foundation/Classic Under Shetland classes and vice versa. Previous posts have listed the height comparisions of the two methods of measuring.

Looking at these numbers, I currently don't see enough significant difference " height wise" between these two groups ( amhr B and foundation/under classic shetland) at the present time to justify the one group being called "miniature" while the other group not.

I am intriqued with the amhr B division, but to compete I must essentially buy ones similar in height to the unpapered shetland mare & gelding ( 10 hh and 10.2 hh) that we rode (years ago) when I was eleven. In height comparison, that makes me feel foolish calling Amhr B miniatures "miniatures" especially if I have to explain it.

Btw, I think today's shetlands are wonderful, and I am sure that aspc is fun. I loved watching the Rock E sale. I can understand why people choose aspc ponies ! It is an option that is out there.

For me, it is the "miniature" aspect that draws me to miniature horses. The idea of them being (as a whole group) smaller than any other horse or pony breed…and the challenge of breeding great horses within the height limits that define miniature horses as "miniature in size". I like that amhr has the A & B ( or "under" and "over" divisons) and am interested in both. For Amhr to stay at least somewhat "miniature" in size, I think that a height limit of 39 inches for the B division, measured at the wither, should be the absolute maximum. If 38 inches at the wither is voted in, then I will live with that height limit. The maximum height for the foundation/classic under shetlands is only 42 inches, measured at the wither...so in comparision that makes sense numberwise that there be 4 inches difference between an Amhr B Miniature maximum height and the foundation/classic under shetland maximum height. However, choosing a maximum of 39 inches, at the wither for Amhr, may end up being the comprimise, as it allows another inch of height for driving compared to 38 maximum. A height limit of 40 inches doesn't sound "miniature" to me at all. Nor does 10 hh. And 39 "sounds" a lot smaller than 40 (when I have to explain miniatures to someone or justify the name to myself). I can get my head around miniature horses being up to 39 inches, but not 40 inches. Also, if amhr B miniatures are up to 40 inches at the wither then they are only 2 inches smaller than foundation/under classic shetlands who are up to 42 inches...and that is pretty much the current situation...just "spelling it out" more clearly by using wither measurement.

I do not believe that grandfathered horses would drastically lose value, if they are of excellent confirmation. They can be shown. They can be bred to a horse that is much smaller in height to produce foals within the height limit. That kind of breeding is already done now to reduce size on foals for whatever reason.

I think this proposal has started an important discussion about measuring and height. I also understand the many important concerns that are being expressed on this thread. Change is never easy for sure. Worry is worse. I hope more people post that haven't said anything yet. I had to get up my nerve to do so !


----------



## wpsellwood (Jul 18, 2010)

I havent read the entire post boy how did it get so many pages since the last time I read it!! It truly doesnt matter which way it goes if any, I just think in my own mind and just my opinion it would be much more fair at the base of withers. You can slide down that wither, but when you are at the base you are at the bottom. Of couse we still have stretching and all that goes on. But I think you elimate alot of room for error at the bottom.


----------



## wildoak (Jul 18, 2010)

Whew, it's late, I've been out of town and just catching up on this. My brain gave out at about page 17 LOL, but I think Kim's post there was right to the point. I also have long favored the addition of a breedstock only division, but that's another topic. I'm not opposed to changing the place of measurement although it won't erase all of the problems with being a height based registry, but I am opposed to disallowing a significant group of horses who currently approach the upper B limits and would then become oversize. Not all would be eligible for Shetland registry, and not all who show AMHR would be able and/or willing to add another set of shows to their schedule. I have nothing against Shetlands, I've been really wowed by some in the last few years, it's just not where I've gone with my horses.

Jan


----------



## Ellen (Jul 19, 2010)

If this passes, the heights will have to change by about 3 inches for minis. Some minis heights differ 3 inches from mane hair to whiter. I am not fond of this suggestion. Think of how many great quality 37-38 inch minis and future stock will lose their papers.

Fine for us pony peoples, but will really screw up us AMHR/ASPC breeders and AMHR breeders. Some of our programs are built around horses of this size. Not fair. A lot of us have really worked hard to build or programs. JMHO.


----------



## midnight star stables (Jul 19, 2010)

hobbyhorse23 said:


> I actually agree with the rest of this post about being fair to everyone or improving the breed, but I raised an eyebrow over the Justin Morgan comparison. Really?? The whole point of that story is that pretty is as pretty does, and I don't see a whole lot of the tinies "out-pulling, out-working, or out-trotting" their larger counterparts!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not sure as to why I feel as though I have to defend myself and yet because it relates to this post, I have. 

 

As a "business", yes all this DOES worry me as I am not rich and work very hard for the few horses I have. This rule would strongly impact me, and just as many others, my post is an example of such cases. I did not say I would _"like"_ my horses any less, but rather that this rule would directly affect the majority of my small herd. I'm sure they aren't "worth" much money in compared to some other horses that would also be affected, however it matters to me. I'm sorry you seem to feel I am simply that coldhearted and value everything on a $0.50 ribbon. I am happy with my *AMHR* horses that _I_ love, however *I'd say I don't want the years of time and money that I have put into them tossed aside due to an abrupt rule change.*


----------



## kaykay (Jul 19, 2010)

This is totally off topic but I have to reply

Des

Please do not feel the need to have to defend yourself against posts like that. You are as entitled to an opinion as much as anyone else is. I have watched your for years and you have done a fabulous job and I have never doubted for a minute that you love your horses.

Bottom line is a decision like this affects everyone from the smallest farm to the biggest. From the hobbyist that just loves to show their horse to the trainers that get paid to do it.

Kay


----------



## Sue_C. (Jul 19, 2010)

> And for many of us a 35-36" horse is perfect as they have more power than the A's with a longer stride but don't seem so much like ponies as the larger B's. I like the ponies but if I want one, I'll buy a Welsh.


Come on now...you really think there is that much difference between a 36 and a 38 inch miniature, so as to liken them to a Welsh pony?



I WISH!!!!





Anyways, as I remarked before, there is no way they can change these rules to discount the horses that are now registered, nor their future foals, without opening themselves to many serious law suits.

I am with those that agree with measuring from the TOP OF THE WITHERS, and using the numbers 36", and 40", a maximums. This will not increase the size of our horses...good heaven's people, they will still be the same horses, simply measured PROPERLY. Those that want tiny, will still breed for tiny, and those who want to breed performance horses, will continue to do so.


----------

