# Open the AMHA Studbook to Hardship AMHR Horses



## Little Hooves (Feb 13, 2012)

Allow AMHR horses to be eligible for hardshipping into AMHA in 2014. This proposed rule change is up for voting at this year's AMHA annual meeting. Because I am unable to go, I was encouraged to create this in hopes that my voice could be heard and help others who will be voting make an informed decision.

If you are an AMHA member and support the cause to open the books to hardship AMHR horses into AMHA, then sign this petition and pass it on to other AMHA members. Your AMHA member number is not required, but recommended and will not be displayed. The PDF linked to this petition documents reasons that benefit this decision (it is still in the process of being edited, but the rough draft has been uploaded due to time constraints).




*Read the benefits of this rule change*​



Read about Inbreeding Depression (the downside to closing studbooks)​



SIGN THE PETITION​


----------



## sfmini (Feb 13, 2012)

I am not sure who encouraged you to put up an electronic petition, but it won't be recognized as the only form of petition that is accepted is that with actual physical signatures.

That is per my six years past experience on the Board.

The best thing you can and must do is contact your directors and let them know how you feel!

Personally, I am 100% behind this, and also of the opinion that in order to become an actual breed, an AMHA horse bred to an AMHA horse should always have AMHA registered offspring no matter the mature height of the offspring. Leave the shows alone with the 34 and under limit but don't worry so much about the registered stock.


----------



## horsehug (Feb 13, 2012)

Jody, I sure wish you were still on the board!

By the way, do Faxed signatures not count either.........just in case there was still time for that?

Susan O.


----------



## horsehug (Feb 13, 2012)

I emailed both my directors and asked for their support of the petition, or of the basic premise of it, if the petition itself does not count.

Thanks for trying to do this, Brenda. I hope everyone will contact their directors also like Jody suggested.

If you go to the AMHA website and scroll to the bottom and click on Regional Map you can find your directors and email them.

http://www.amha.org/

Susan O.


----------



## Little Hooves (Feb 13, 2012)

Knowing this, I do have everyone's email address who signed and can inform them to mail in a signature. It's still good to see the support, signatures or not.



horsehug said:


> I emailed both my directors and asked for their support of the petition, or of the basic premise of it, if the petition itself does not count.
> 
> Thanks for trying to do this, Brenda. I hope everyone will contact their directors also like Jody suggested.
> 
> ...


----------



## Little Hooves (Feb 13, 2012)

But this just brings be to a second thought - is this my foot-in-mouth moment? Does this policy of only actual physical signatures validate that the registry is still in the dark ages? Electronic signatures are accepted by many businesses, organizations, and government, so why is AMHA still lingering on the physical signature and requiring everyone who wants to vote to show up to the meeting? When your registry is world-wide, these sort of requirements make it more exclusive than inclusive.

I guess I am just wondering how long it will take for AMHA to evolve and catch up with the demands of the modern world - - - you mean to say they don't "have an app for that"?

Change needs to start somewhere.


----------



## horsehug (Feb 13, 2012)

So do we mail our signature to AMHA? And will they have a written copy of your petition, Brenda, for us to mention that is what the signature goes with?

Thanks,

Susan O.


----------



## sfmini (Feb 13, 2012)

Electronic signatures are legal but only in secured applications for obvious reasons. AMHA has no "petition" software with secure access to ENSURE that only a single member logs in and signs. So not in the dark ages, you just need to be aware of the actual technology behind those electronic signatures.

They also don't have the personpower to assemble a pile of faxes and do something with them. Also, as noted in the rule book there is only ONE way to change a rule and anything else can be tossed.

Contact your region's directors and make sure they know your feelings on the issue, they can be buried with those emails, that is their job (and they will probably shoot me for that) but that is the reality.

As for remote voting for members, to my knowledge not a single soul has ever proposed the change along with a feasible, cost effective solution. Don't just propose or complain that you want it changed, you have to also help be part of the solution and it is a tricky one, and will be expensive to implement.

Like it or not, the money has to come from somewhere, a new source or in increased fees.


----------



## Little Hooves (Feb 13, 2012)

sfmini said:


> Electronic signatures are legal but only in secured applications for obvious reasons. AMHA has no "petition" software with secure access to ENSURE that only a single member logs in and signs. So not in the dark ages, you just need to be aware of the actual technology behind those electronic signatures.
> 
> They also don't have the personpower to assemble a pile of faxes and do something with them. Also, as noted in the rule book there is only ONE way to change a rule and anything else can be tossed.
> 
> ...


It's quite simple to find the money to pay for the voting. And I promise you, I will get to the point of doing my own legwork as this petition and such was a last-minute effort, etc. I have not played much of a role in the workings of the registries before, so I appreciate your input. I will research the matters more for proposing my own rule changes and offering my own suggestions. I can already think of several cost-efficient ways a registry can operate an absentee vote.

Wish I could discuss this more, but I am late for work! Thank you again for your input - sorry for my near-sightedness.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Feb 13, 2012)

Mary Lou - LB said:


> Hi all... I try to stay neutral in things but I just want to point out a few things that came to me through e-mail.. Some people wish to stay anonymous but are most sincere in their thoughts.. So please look at this from another view..
> 
> The point of the e-mail I have got is…
> 
> ...


I have to agree with you and the emails you received. We recently have gotten into the Thoroughbred business and I, as always have really researched the pedigrees and it is the same as what you have said about the Standardbreds. Line breeding is done a lot in Thoroughbreds as well and as a result horses get faster and better. I believe it is done in most horse breeds with good results so I am confused why mini owners are against line breeding. We are seriously considering showing in AMHA from now on instead of AMHR and for several reasons in edition to the ones you mentioned wouldn't support this.


----------



## valshingle (Feb 13, 2012)

I'm not going to get into the discussion of line-breeding or in-breeding.

I want to tell you that if you have a strong opinion on this issue, then you need to let your director know. I have emailed all the directors informing them of my opinion.

I want to respond to the issue of supply and demand. I do not have any training in marketing, but I believe that low prices are not always due to over supply. People's interest can change and something that was once 'hot' becomes yesterday's fad. If a company keeps producing a product that people don't want then the prices drop. Avocado colored appliances are in very limited supply these days, but I don't see their prices shooting up or the demand for them increasing. Fashion also drives the market.

Whether you like it or not, the Shetland influence is what is 'hot' in the show ring right now - in halter and driving. Being able to bring some of this blood into AMHA (as long as they are under 34") will allow breeders to add this to their breeding program and produce more marketable horses. Otherwise I fear more and more people will jump on the AMHR/ASPC bandwagon and leave AMHA.

This is just my opinion - Flame away!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Feb 13, 2012)

IMO having a closed registry they are limiting themselves at accepting new blood come into the registry. By allowing continued registration for AMHR horses you may potentially get the next best thing. Sure line breeding can work but eventually it will fizzle out. If someone wants a purebred AMHA horse well they are out there, people can find them, but how many of those are AMHA/AMHR, would it make that horse any less value? Honestly what is the difference between AMHA and AMHR? Only difference is AMHA does not accept the bigger minis which is perfectly fine, but if thats the only difference then whats the reason by not accepting Under AMHR minis? But AMHA wanted to stay away from AMHR so I don't see this pass, I'll be very shocked to see members vote for it. I think AMHA is rushing this, and haven't thought this out at all and I can see something come up and bite them in the butt.


----------



## valshingle (Feb 13, 2012)

I was dismayed to hear back from one AMHA director who is against allowing AMHR horses to hardship in - strictly because they think that by limiting the number of AMHA horses the prices will go back up.


----------



## sfmini (Feb 13, 2012)

JMS, this has been in the works for over five years so this isn't some spur of the moment decision.

Also, AMHA DID NOT MAKE THIS PROPOSAL OR DECISION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY A *MEMBER*, PASSED COMMITTEE REVIEW(*AMHA MEMBERS*), AND WAS THEN PUT BEFORE THE *MEMBERSHIP* A YEAR BEFORE THE *MEMBERSHIP VOTED TO PASS the closing of the books*.

AMHA is not a they, *AMHA is us, the membership*. The office never changes rules, neither does the executive committee or board unless it is considered a fiscal or safety emergency. Otherwise *ONLY* the members change the rules and bylaws.


----------



## valshingle (Feb 13, 2012)

Jody - Obviously you know that I know that the BOD and EC aren't the ones who will be making the decision. It will be the members in attendance that are voting. I can't be there and wanted the Directors know my opinion, they may bring up some of the points in the discussion prior to the vote. And I'd like to think that my area Directors will keep in mind the majority opinion of their regional members when voting (that's if my opinion is in the majority, lol). I can potentially see the EC intervening, as they have in the past, even though this should be a membership vote.

Not arguing, just clarifying.


----------



## sfmini (Feb 13, 2012)

I know Val, that is why I directed my comment to JMS, not you.

I wouldn't stop at just your own directors, contact them all.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Feb 13, 2012)

sfmini said:


> JMS, this has been in the works for over five years so this isn't some spur of the moment decision.
> 
> Also, AMHA DID NOT MAKE THIS PROPOSAL OR DECISION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY A *MEMBER*, PASSED COMMITTEE REVIEW(*AMHA MEMBERS*), AND WAS THEN PUT BEFORE THE *MEMBERSHIP* A YEAR BEFORE THE *MEMBERSHIP VOTED TO PASS the closing of the books*.
> 
> AMHA is not a they, *AMHA is us, the membership*. The office never changes rules, neither does the executive committee or board unless it is considered a fiscal or safety emergency. Otherwise *ONLY* the members change the rules and bylaws.


I didn't mean to make it sound like that in my post. I know how it works. How many members that were there that wanted it pass? Just the select few that were there. I think its important to hear all the voices of it's members. As far as planning goes what are they doing? Have they covered everything competely? It's a big step that I would be curious to hear what their plans are.


----------



## kaykay (Feb 13, 2012)

> AND this person also mentioned that limiting the hardshipping would help keep the value up on the AMHA, under 34" Miniature horse as it has in the past..


I strongly disagree with that. Obviously it is not working. When I first started it was a big deal to own AMHA/AMHR registered horses. Then the AMHA shows started to disappear. After much frustration I just totally switched out of AMHA horses due to the lack of shows and financial instability of the org.

If AMHR hardshipping was allowed it would bring much needed funds back into AMHA and hopefully they could get more shows going as they had in the past.


----------



## valshingle (Feb 13, 2012)

Jody - that's what I thought. Believe me, I emailed every Director. I've only heard back from 2 so far.

JMS - I can tell you from experience that the committees work very hard to research for impact most proposals that go to the membership. HOWEVER, certain Rule Change Proposals must (according to the rule book) be passed on to the membership for a vote (meaning they can't be killed in committee), regardless of how well thought out or not they are. The committee involved can recommend a proposal be passed or not, or can say they have no opinion.


----------



## sfmini (Feb 13, 2012)

Only Bylaw changes must go to the membership for a vote and the committee can only express their opinion.

For the rest, if a rule change proposal isn't thorough, would cost too much money, would not be legal, or violate the bylaws, the committee can recommend to the board that the rule change proposal not go forward to the membership and the board will vote yea or nay. They try not to do that when possible, as they feel the membership has a right to express their opinions, but there are some proposals that just cannot go up for vote because of some of what I listed above.


----------



## valshingle (Feb 13, 2012)

Jody - Are you going to the convention?


----------



## sfmini (Feb 13, 2012)

No. Can't afford to this year. My convention money went towards my Sister In Law's funeral.


----------



## valshingle (Feb 13, 2012)

Sorry to hear that - both the death and the convention.

Well, I've done everything I can to get my voice heard, just have to hope those present agree with me. Wish I could afford to attend the conventions and be more involved. I can go to the ones in TX, but the annual ones are a bit out of my reach these days. Hopefully my job situation will improve and I can be more involved again.


----------



## Charlotte (Feb 13, 2012)

> financial instability of the org.


I would just like to quickly correct this misstatement.

AMHA is in a much more stable financial position than many other equine breed organizations, some of which are in very bad shape. AMHA made a substantial profit last year.


----------



## sfmini (Feb 13, 2012)

Charlotte, good catch, missed that comment and had to go back and find the comment.

In that post it was said that the money would allow AMHA to have more shows. AMHA only puts on 4 shows a year and only 4. That would be the 3 Championship shows and the World Show.

All other shows are put on by AMHA affiliated clubs and those clubs do not get any money from AMHA.


----------



## Charlotte (Feb 13, 2012)

Right Jody! Thanks for catching that show one too.






Also on the AMHA shows....ANYONE can put on shows. It doesn't have to be a club. So if there are no shows in your area get with a group of people or get some clubs to go together and put on your shows. We do that here in OK with a TX club.

AND, now there are the new format shows that make it SO easy! Why don't I see people talking about them? Half day Community Shows that can be put on at the local round up club or in someone's back pasture! Same with the Youth Performance shows! An easy and inexpensive way to get started with shows and to get interest generated in YOUR area! Talk about a marketing tool!


----------



## albahurst (Feb 13, 2012)

Charlotte- Can you share a bit more about the format shows. I didn't realize they were a reality.


----------



## Charlotte (Feb 13, 2012)

Oh yes Peggy! They are very much a reality. Call or email the AMHA show department and request a 2012 Rule Book be sent to you.

Page 81, D2 AMHA Youth Performance Events.

Page 81 D3 AMHA Community Shows.

These are full pointed AMHA shows. They require measuring. They require an AMHA approved show manager (anyone can take the open book test and become a manager for your shows) Horses shall not be penalized for showing unclipped.

Also request from the office the Show Manager's packet and this will have a lot more information for you. ANYONE can put on these shows!

Actually, the Oklahoma club will be putting one on this year....I think one of the Community Shows. So nice



No hotels, stall fees not necessary unless you just want a stall...nice.

I've even been thinking about one of the Youth Performance Shows in one of our paddocks. Halter Obstacle, Driving Obasticle, Hunter, Jumper....with the various age breaks.


----------



## kaykay (Feb 13, 2012)

> I would just like to quickly correct this misstatement.
> AMHA is in a much more stable financial position than many other equine breed organizations, some of which are in very bad shape. AMHA made a substantial profit last year.


What is the amount of the substantial profit?

I was though referring to when big farms basically had to bail out AMHA were they were about to go under. Remember the auctions etc? Then just a couple years later they were on the brink again. Last time I looked the year end statement was not great but I think the last one I saw was 2010 or maybe 2009?

It is in AMHA's best interest to back some shows and get them going again. It is a huge financial undertaking to put on a show and especially to get that show to make money or at least not loose money. I don't know a whole lot of clubs that can take that risk right now.

Back when I first started there was no way I had the knowledge (or even the finances) to put on a show. All I knew was that in Illinois there were no AMHA shows, but there were tons of ASPC/AMHR shows. I would say that is the single biggest reason I sold all my AMHA horses and stopped buying new ones.

I also think this is why the World show has such low attendance.

For sure allowing AMHR horses to hardship would bring in a lot of revenue that could be shared with clubs to get more shows going.

Now this is just my opinion from someone who has watched for a lot of years. There are great and good with every registry!


----------



## Little Hooves (Feb 13, 2012)

Hey everyone, I apologize if my petition comes across controversial. But I did want to address those who had concerns or disagreements about the inbreeding article. It was just meant to address the downside - it isn't to say that a few line-bred horses are going to send the breed into a tailspin, but it is addressing that it can become problematic - and historically, it has been problematic for many breeds. The only solution to a high inbreeding coefficient is to outcross... and to outcross, you kind of need an open studbook



It's not to say, however, that you can't get a wonderful animal out of line breeding. This happens slightly more often than crossing two unrelated horses. But alternatively, you also experience a higher rate of culls with linebreeding/inbreeding than crossing two unrelated horses. It works both ways.

I had my husband write the inbreeding article after collecting information we learned about "purebred" horses, dogs, or anything. The inbreeding coefficient is a guide that tracks how related individuals of a breed are to one another and the higher this number becomes, the more health problems crop up in the breed. When an immune system becomes homozygous, the animal has trouble fighting disease, or may have metabolic or fertility issues. It has only been my observation that many people practice line breeding in the miniature horse industry, and to continue this practice at the rate we're going with closed books could shorten the longevity of AMHA registered horses faster than we realize. There are cases in sheep where a registry had to be reopened because the sheep were becoming too inbred, resulting in higher lamb losses and infertility in adult sheep. Line breeding isn't completely bad, as it is a way to assure a specific look of an animal with homozygous traits. But extreme caution should be used because you're also concentrating negative recessive traits that will show up later in the breed when more and more horses become homozygous.

I think the short term, the pay-off of line breeding is great because you can get some amazing looking animals that look like their amazing looking parents. But where the animal's health is compromised, how long can you continue this practice? I know some registries have to manage their inbreeding coefficient very carefully, based off the research I have done. We haven't required this in the miniature horse breed yet because it is still so young, and currently has an open studbook.

Also, a big "negative recessive" trait that miniature horse breeders should especially be wary of with closing the books is the dwarf gene. To close the books NOW, BEFORE we can even test horses to eliminate the gene is probably not the best idea. We can always kick out any foal that has dwarf traits, but we can't spot the carrier horses.

As for the books closing at the end of 2013, I am prepared this will happen, but I am hopeful the proposed rule change for hardshipping will pass. I think there are more benefits than negatives. If we're talking value of horses, the only thing going to really impact a horse's value now is simple economics - supply and demand. With all the liquidations going on, this is the problem we should be trying to solve: how to create more demand!


----------



## garyo (Feb 14, 2012)

valshingle said:


> I can potentially see the EC intervening, as they have in the past, even though this should be a membership vote.


Just to clarify the EC's role: I will argue that the EC will not and can not intervene in this and I will back up my argument by referring to the AMHA bylaws, specifically Article VIII, Section 2 Duties which states:

*The duties of the Executive Committee shall be to act for*

*the Board on matters requiring resolution between Board*

*meetings, personnel matters and on disciplinary matters*

*as provided in the General Rules and Regulations and*

*other duties as directed by the Board.*

Obviously, this does not meet the duties of the EC as specified by the bylaws.

And Val, I must have missed your e-mail, but would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Gary


----------



## valshingle (Feb 14, 2012)

Gary - In the past, the EC and/or BOD has acted when they shouldn't have, in direct violation of the rule book. I know, I was there to see it. I remember the Bylaws committee chairperson pointing it out during an annual convention and still it happened. They interceded in the 'base of the withers' rule change; something that had already been voted on by the membership. While I was glad that particular rule change didn't go through, in my opinion the BOD/EC didn't have the authority to intercede. They can, however, make extraordinary rule changes to safeguard the financial integrity of the association; I guess that can be interpreted in different ways.

In reviewing the rule book, the BOD probably used Article XVI, D, to change the base of the withers measurement rule change. I do not agree with them doing it, just pointing out how they got around the 2 year non-amendment rule.


----------



## Little Hooves (Feb 14, 2012)

valshingle said:


> I was dismayed to hear back from one AMHA director who is against allowing AMHR horses to hardship in - strictly because they think that by limiting the number of AMHA horses the prices will go back up.


This to me, is unfortunate, because it is a theory without supporting facts. I would like to see their research.

The truth is it always comes down to supply and demand. Other closed registries are not high-value simply because the horses are registered. Look at Arabs, Thoroughbreds and Quarter Horses. Their prices are everywhere and in some cases given away for free. If anything, their papers only are used as a means of identification.

If the desire is to attempt to reduce the supply of *registered *miniature horses, this just hurts the members of AMHA who still must compete with the other miniature horses listed for sale, unregistered or AMHR, etc. Papers aren't so much the influence of price anymore because miniature horses are so plentiful right now.

That really was the sole reason for not wanting AMHR horses in the registry?


----------



## targetsmom (Feb 14, 2012)

Little Hooves said:


> Also, a big "negative recessive" trait that miniature horse breeders should especially be wary of with closing the books is the dwarf gene. To close the books NOW, BEFORE we can even test horses to eliminate the gene is probably not the best idea. We can always kick out any foal that has dwarf traits, but we can't spot the carrier horses.


I wondered if anyone was going to raise this issue. Until we know - if and when a test is developed - how many dwarf carriers there are among AMHA registered horses, I think it is premature to fully close the registry. Being able to bring in AMHR registered horses that are NOT dwarf carriers would be something to consider.


----------



## Becky (Feb 14, 2012)

> Being able to bring in AMHR registered horses that are NOT dwarf carriers would be something to consider.


I don't want to start an argument, but exactly which horses are those?? Since the majority of AMHA registered horses evolved from AMHR/ASPC horses, wouldn't it be safe to assume that AMHR horses also carry dwarf genes? I know all of my horses are double registered AMHA/AMHR and they have the exact same pedigree in both registries.


----------



## Eohippus (Feb 14, 2012)

Becky said:


> I don't want to start an argument, but exactly which horses are those?? Since the majority of AMHA registered horses evolved from AMHR/ASPC horses, wouldn't it be safe to assume that AMHR horses also carry dwarf genes? I know all of my horses are double registered AMHA/AMHR and they have the exact same pedigree in both registries.


I'm not that familiar with all of AMHR's rules, as I'm not as involved with AMHR as I am AMHA even though my horses are registered in it. But doesn't AMHR allow ASPC horses that meet the high qualifications to be registered as AMHR? So in theory you can have some shetlands that don't have the same pedigrees brought into AMHR then brought into AMHA, yes? And did AMHR close its books? If not then, again in theory, couldn't you have a horse of another breed (say, Hackney) that qualifies in height be hardshipped into AMHR then registered into AMHA because of it? That would allow new blood that doesn't carry the dwarf gene.


----------



## targetsmom (Feb 14, 2012)

Becky said:


> I don't want to start an argument, but exactly which horses are those?? Since the majority of AMHA registered horses evolved from AMHR/ASPC horses, wouldn't it be safe to assume that AMHR horses also carry dwarf genes? I know all of my horses are double registered AMHA/AMHR and they have the exact same pedigree in both registries.


That was not to imply AMHR horses would be any LESS likely to carry the dwarf gene - only that ONCE A DWARF TEST IS AVAILABLE, then any NON carriers can be identified. So any AMHR horses that tested as NON-dwarf carriers I would think might be desirable to add to the AMHA registry.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Feb 14, 2012)

Eohippus said:


> I'm not that familiar with all of AMHR's rules, as I'm not as involved with AMHR as I am AMHA even though my horses are registered in it. But doesn't AMHR allow ASPC horses that meet the high qualifications to be registered as AMHR? So in theory you can have some shetlands that don't have the same pedigrees brought into AMHR then brought into AMHA, yes? And did AMHR close its books? If not then, again in theory, couldn't you have a horse of another breed (say, Hackney) that qualifies in height be hardshipped into AMHR then registered into AMHA because of it? That would allow new blood that doesn't carry the dwarf gene.


AMHR is considered semi-open registry. It accepts hardship of horses that are registered with AMHA, ASPC, and Fabella. However it does not accept any outside miniatures like AMHA does as of right now any mini that fits the height limit and follows to the standard can receive papers by hardship, so right now AMHA is considered an open registry. But in 2013 AMHA will be closed and that means no outside blood will come in and will potentially limit itself to improve.

I think its just silly to compare one registry over another. They are both height registrys, one just accepts only Under horses, however AMHRs B division is doing great. We can't compare what registry brings in more money as AMHR accepts more horses every year, and more show at the National show every year because of the B division. It looks like to me that AMHA's numbers were strong at their World show. I also think its silly to say AMHA has more dwarf carriers then AMHR when many of those horses are double registered in both so who's to say AMHR has any less? There is no test, which is why I think the other forum member is saying that AMHA is rushing into this.

I agree I think AMHA was very much prestigious back in the day, now I think neither one is more prestigious then the other. AMHA has its own route, AMHR has another. I really think AMHA wants to stop the ASPC bred horses coming into AMHA and I understand thats not what they want for their registry. I hope this works out for AMHA I really do, I just don't see them closing the registry will benefit them very much, hopefully I'm wrong.


----------



## Lewella (Feb 14, 2012)

Becky said:


> I don't want to start an argument, but exactly which horses are those?? Since the majority of AMHA registered horses evolved from AMHR/ASPC horses, wouldn't it be safe to assume that AMHR horses also carry dwarf genes? I know all of my horses are double registered AMHA/AMHR and they have the exact same pedigree in both registries.


Just a point of clarification - there is no dwarfism documented or even rumored to exist in the ASPC gene pool.


----------



## kaykay (Feb 14, 2012)

Mary Lou

I never intended my post to come off as registry bashing! I want all registries to do well as that is in the best interest of the horses and members. That is why I included this:



> Now this is just my opinion from someone who has watched for a lot of years. There are great and good with every registry!


Heck there are a ton of things that could be better in AMHR and I am usually pretty vocal about that too!


----------



## Amoreminiatures (Feb 14, 2012)

Thank You Lewella for pointing that out and also you can not hardship a registered AMHR into ASPC, either they have their ASPC papers or they never will. I strongly feel the genetic gene pool is NOT strong enough to close the door at this point period, and to think that would rise the value is a beat I for one as a OVER 20 YEAR member of AMHA CERTAINLY would NOT be willing to take, it is truly AWFUL at the current market in these wonderful little horses that I INVESTED A LOT of money into and lets just say today I am not reaping the rewards of such investment.. HOWEVER everytime I look at these little loves my heart swells but my bank account........Not so much... Maybe in time we can revisit this topic but my vote would be NO for today, and believe me I wish I was able to attend the Annual meeting but at this moment it was not likely to happen.. I MISS the days when there was enough shows in this area to earn some point achieve some goals and participate in AMHA on the show level, but as the cost of the shows kept going up and participation when down away went the shows and now to attend is a distance and alot of monies for very little competition. I feel like it is one those remember when moments.. Sorry if I offended anyone, but BELIEVE ME I am INVESTED GREATLY in AMHA also.....


----------



## Margo_C-T (Feb 14, 2012)

I am a Lifetime member of AMHA; don't currently belong to AMHR because I no longer care to breed or to breed show in either.I have private opinions about both registries which I won't air here; my point in posting is to comment on a couple of the points brought up.

On linebreeding: I agree that it can and has worked well on many occasions; however, the KEY is the KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE of the breeder(s) involved, I believe. IMO, there is and will likely always be a high percentage of folks who consider themselves breeders that lack the depth and 'sense' of both to reliably practice it. And, it should always be remembered, it is STILL always something of a 'crap shoot' when you breed animals, as to the quality of the resulting offspring. Ergo...a wider genetic pool is a better idea.

It must be remembered that ANYTIME something is 'hardshipped',ALL of the standards(especially HEIGHT, IMO!) MUST be strictly adhered to, to uphold the rules and ethical reputation of the registry from whom acceptance is being solicited.

I believe it to be almost certain that there are dwarf carriers in both the AMHA and AMHR registered population...but as others have noted, to totally 'shut off' the possibility of future inclusion of tested NON-carriers from AMHR in the AMHA gene pool seems kind of short-sighted. Why not wait until a reliable test is developed and able to be put to use?

All this said...I would support a properly-constructed move to allow AMHR-onlys to hardship into AMHA.Years back, I went ahead and hardshipped all the minis I then owned, except for one elderly mare, who was here to stay for the rest of her life, into AMHR. All were honestly AMHA-only in height; I felt it would only improve their chances of saleability should I decide to sell, as all were/are either well-trained in performance and/or of halter/breeding quality.

I do have a question...if there is no evidence of ANY dwarfism in the ASPC gene pool, yet it is now pretty widely acknowledged that miniatures are directly descended from Shetlands, where would those of you in the know say that the dwarfism 'came from'? A one-time mutation? Multiple mutations? And if so,any thoughts/theories on when and where?

And, though I agree that the AMHA(AND the AMHR, for that matter!)SHOULD BE 'us', the membership, the reality of it is that the AMHA, at least(I am not UTD on AMHR's rules/practices), the voting is,as has ever been so, being done by an increasingly TINY percentage of the membership...only those who can afford to personally attend the National meetings.I would personally LOVE to see someone (No, it won't be me...been there, done that...and am not getting any younger!)updated serious work on workable ways to accomplish access to voting by ALL eligible, bonafide members!

Just some personal observations/opinions.

Margo in NM


----------



## Lewella (Feb 14, 2012)

Margo_C-T said:


> On linebreeding: I agree that it can and has worked well on many occasions; however, the KEY is the KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE of the breeder(s) involved, I believe. IMO, there is and will likely always be a high percentage of folks who consider themselves breeders that lack the depth and 'sense' of both to reliably practice it. And, it should always be remembered, it is STILL always something of a 'crap shoot' when you breed animals, as to the quality of the resulting offspring. Ergo...a wider genetic pool is a better idea.


You are so correct! If you are going to linebreed you must be willing to cull ruthlessly and few people today have the stomach for that.

I know many of you don't follow the big horse world closely but in the last few years the number of genetic recessive diseases that have come to light is frightening. Arabians have an expanding list recessive genetic diseases including Cerebellar Abiotrophy, Lavender Foal Syndrome, and Severe Combined Immunodeficiency. Along with the long known problems with HYPP, Quarter Horses now have Hereditary Equine Regional Dermal Asthenia and Glycogen Branching Enzyme Deficiency to deal with as well. Every one of these diseases was first seen in linebred/inbred animals.



Margo_C-T said:


> I do have a question...if there is no evidence of ANY dwarfism in the ASPC gene pool, yet it is now pretty widely acknowledged that miniatures are directly descended from Shetlands, where would those of you in the know say that the dwarfism 'came from'? A one-time mutation? Multiple mutations? And if so,any thoughts/theories on when and where?


Though Shetland blood is the primary influence in the miniature gene pool it is obviously not the only genetic contributor. Coat color is a great exampe of that. Champagne does not exist in the Shetland gene pool yet there are several different Champagne bloodlines in miniatures. Appaloosa spotting has been prohibited since the beginning of both the ASPC and the SPSBS (the British Shetland registry) yet it exists in the miniature gene pool.


----------



## LaVern (Feb 15, 2012)

No dwarfs in the Shetlands? I owned a papered one, fifty years ago, at least he looked like one, but then more than likely he had the wrong papers. I probably was the only one in the World that had dishonest papers though.


----------



## Suzie (Feb 15, 2012)

I will most likely get flamed for this, but really, closing the registry to stop the registration of dwarf gene carrying horses is so obsurd. Like closing the barn door after the horse is 1/2 mile down the road folks. It is here, in both registries and that is a simple fact.

We don't need to close the registry to hardshipping. *We need to increase breeding education, information and ethics. *

Closing the registry only closes off a source of income for honest hardshipping. It does not erradicate or even stem the flow of unethical people who will continue to purposefully breed dwarf characteristics because they are so "cute" and they quite frankly from my personal observance sell for a considerable bit more than a conformationally correct horse at the same sale venue. At least with hardshipping, done under supervision with bone fide witnesses, you KNOW that horse does not show obvious dwarf traits.

Flame away.


----------



## Tabetha (Feb 15, 2012)

I spoke with my AMHA person for #1 region.

She told me that this rule was already decided on several years ago, and will go into effect as of 12/31/13.

She said if anyone has horse at least 3yrs of age or will be as of that date, then they can send in their hardship paperwork.

I agree that the hard-shipping should remain open for those horses with impeccable standard.

Just thought I would post what I am aware of...


----------



## Suzie (Feb 15, 2012)

This is a "done deal" for 2013. No doubt about it. I am personally going to hardship in a horse this year. I have waited 4 years to watch this horse grow and now I am convinced he deserves to be hardshipped in at a high cost because he is nice enough.

I have a filly that I would like to hardship in, but this year it is not economically feasible. So I made the choice for the colt in hopes I could recoup my investment quicker with him. If they close hardshippin forever, well, that is just a loss for AMHA on the filly. I won't breed her here and not sure if I will sell her. One thing for sure, any foals she produces (if the registry stands as is) will never generate one dime for AMHA down the road.....if I don't get a chance to hardship her in.


----------



## valshingle (Feb 15, 2012)

Tabetha said:


> I spoke with my AMHA person for #1 region.
> 
> She told me that this rule was already decided on several years ago, and will go into effect as of 12/31/13.
> 
> ...


What is being voted on at the AMHA convention is a proposal that would allow hardshipping a horse with AMHR papers (who meets all other requirements) into AMHA.

Currently, there will be no hardshipping into AMHA as of 12/21/13. So you have until then to hardship in 3 yr olds and older.


----------



## jeniemac (Feb 16, 2012)

I would be behind this if the same AMHR mini was not reg. ASPC.


----------



## valshingle (Feb 16, 2012)

jeniemac said:


> I would be behind this if the same AMHR mini was not reg. ASPC.


Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you want any ASPC that measured 34" or under to be allowed to hardship into AMHA? Many of the founding miniature horse were Shetlands that were quite small. I have seen some triple registered (AMHA/AMHR/ASPC) horses that are stunning and some are not. There are different ranges of quality in all the breeds.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Feb 16, 2012)

I agree and a lot of your Under mini shetlands aren't the extreme shetland type that you see in the B division, but I think with how you feel is one of the reasons why AMHA wants to close and one of the reasons why I don't see this proposal passing.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Feb 17, 2012)

valshingle said:


> Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you want any ASPC that measured 34" or under to be allowed to hardship into AMHA? Many of the founding miniature horse were Shetlands that were quite small. I have seen some triple registered (AMHA/AMHR/ASPC) horses that are stunning and some are not. There are different ranges of quality in all the breeds.


The founding Shetlands look nothing like the Shetlands in the AMHR show ring today. Rowdy and GMB were basically Shetlands and they look nothing like even some of the 34" and under Shetlands of today. I may get flamed but to me anyway AMHR is turning into a smaller division of ASPC and from talking to some of the judges this past year that is what the goal is. They know that people prefer a double registered horse and if that horse happens to be ASPC/AMHR instead of AMHA/AMHR thats better for them as they money stays in AMHR. I can understand that from a business stance but I prefer the look of AMHA type. Flame me if you like but this was what we were told from several AMHR judges this past year and why we are switching to AMHA shows.


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Feb 17, 2012)

AshleyNicole said:


> I can understand that from a business stance but I prefer the look of AMHA type. Flame me if you like but this was what we were told from several AMHR judges this past year and why we are switching to AMHA shows.


Ditto here. I just don't like the way some of the pony-bred horses heads look like now. I like the short between the eye and nostril and wide between the eye look of the AMHA horse. Some of the ponies have such long, narrow heads...not a look I favor.

In fact, I just bought an AMHA/AMHR gelding to show this year! With the head type I adore!!


----------



## Maple Hollow Farm (Feb 17, 2012)

AshleyNicole said:


> The founding Shetlands look nothing like the Shetlands in the AMHR show ring today. Rowdy and GMB were basically Shetlands and they look nothing like even some of the 34" and under Shetlands of today. I may get flamed but to me anyway AMHR is turning into a smaller division of ASPC and from talking to some of the judges this past year that is what the goal is. They know that people prefer a double registered horse and if that horse happens to be ASPC/AMHR instead of AMHA/AMHR thats better for them as they money stays in AMHR. I can understand that from a business stance but I prefer the look of AMHA type. Flame me if you like but this was what we were told from several AMHR judges this past year and why we are switching to AMHA shows.



I agree completely with this. While I do think many shetlands are pretty it is just not what we are wanting to raise.


----------



## Minimor (Feb 17, 2012)

I'm late getting around to looking at this topic, but now that I have read through it, I have to comment.

Do some people seriously believe that a limited gene pool if AMHA closes is anything like a successful line breeding program? I’m afraid I do not see how one of those has anything to do with the other. I know this has already been said but I will repeat it, just to keep my thoughts all in order. Yes, line breeding works, IF you do it right and if you choose the right individuals to base your line breeding program on. The thing is, for line breeding to be successful you must select your breeding stock for a specific reason—you do NOT just take whatever happens to be available and start linebreeding (or at least you shouldn’t do that). Someone pointed out to me today that AMHA could/should take a lesson from the Friesian breed--the Friesians have had a very small gene pool, and that gene pool does include dwarfism....with the breeding going on within that breed, dwarfism is now a huge problem for the breed. Eliminate dwarf carriers and they won't have many horses left. You can get a lot of info on the issue through a search on google. This exact same thing can happen in AMHA if it closes completely. Some people believe that all Miniature horses carry the dwarf gene now; I personally do not believe this is the case. If it were, we would see a lot more dwarf foals born than there actually are. However, a closed registry could very possibly lead to that very thing coming true in the not so distant future.

Dwarfism in the Shetlands…perhaps at one time it did exist. I cannot say for sure that it did or didn’t; I have heard more than one person say that they did see, sometime a long time ago, a Shetland pony that was a dwarf. So, I have to assume that it is entirely possible that there were a few dwarf Shetlands. However--I do believe people who say that now the ASPC Shetlands have no dwarfism. Think about it—what self respecting ASPC breeder wants a dwarf (or a dwarf producer) in his herd? A dwarf is the complete opposite of everything that a Shetland breeder is striving for. Pony breeders want long legs, slim bodies, long necks and above all—good movement. A dwarf has none of those things. It makes perfect sense that they would cull dwarfism from their herds, and there is no reason why they would not be successful in eliminating dwarfism from the breed. The majority of Mini breeders do not seem interested in eliminating dwarfism, they simply cover it up by breeding their dwarf producers to different horses in hopes that the gene won't make an appearance again. Start line breeding with some dwarf carriers and the gene will most certainly reappear--with increasing frequency.

I will stop there, though there is more I would like to say. maybe another time.


----------



## Eohippus (Feb 17, 2012)

Minimor said:


> I'm late getting around to looking at this topic, but now that I have read through it, I have to comment.
> 
> Do some people seriously believe that a limited gene pool if AMHA closes is anything like a successful line breeding program? I'm afraid I do not see how one of those has anything to do with the other. I know this has already been said but I will repeat it, just to keep my thoughts all in order. Yes, line breeding works, IF you do it right and if you choose the right individuals to base your line breeding program on. The thing is, for line breeding to be successful you must select your breeding stock for a specific reason—you do NOT just take whatever happens to be available and start linebreeding (or at least you shouldn't do that). Someone pointed out to me today that AMHA could/should take a lesson from the Friesian breed--the Friesians have had a very small gene pool, and that gene pool does include dwarfism....with the breeding going on within that breed, dwarfism is now a huge problem for the breed. Eliminate dwarf carriers and they won't have many horses left. You can get a lot of info on the issue through a search on google. This exact same thing can happen in AMHA if it closes completely. Some people believe that all Miniature horses carry the dwarf gene now; I personally do not believe this is the case. If it were, we would see a lot more dwarf foals born than there actually are. However, a closed registry could very possibly lead to that very thing coming true in the not so distant future.
> 
> ...


I agree with this 100%

I can't wait for a dwarf gene test o become available


----------



## stormy (Feb 18, 2012)

Just a few thoughts not in any particular order

Don't see a problem with closing AMHA, there are more AMHA registered horses then there are Shetlands in ASPC or several other horse breeds, just need to be responsible in our breeding to eliminate dwarfism without a test.

Will make me sad that some of my horses will not be able to be hardshipped AMHA but on the other hand we really don't need a third shetland registry either. Somewhere the miniature horse type should be able to grow and thrive and, like many others, I do prefer the AMHA type mini to the pony type.

Sure do wish AMHA would make a place for oversize offspring of two registered parents though. Have a few of those oversize AMHA bred minis and their foals have all stayed under but have to be hardshipped back in...what a loss to throw them away for an inch or less.


----------



## LaVern (Feb 18, 2012)

Very well put as usual Minimor.

I have been following this as I am anxious to see which way they go. Not to say that it couldn't change next year. My guess, is that it will close and that at some time in the future, AMHA will start to realize what they are loosing by casting out their own taller horses.

But, you also made be think, perhaps the closing of the AMHA would be a good thing for ASPC horses. I don't know if it is a good thing that so many want to breed the Shetlands down that little again, in order to get them into AMHA. Getting them down 36" 38" inches is one thing, but when you start shooting for that triple registered thing. I don't know.

I would guess that is what happened before, only they threw away the Shetland papers so there was no record.

If it closes up it would lesson the incentive to breed them smaller and smaller.

Maybe it is an unwise move for the AMHA horse, but perhaps a good thing for the American Shetland Pony.


----------



## kaykay (Feb 18, 2012)

> Ditto here. I just don't like the way some of the pony-bred horses heads look like now. I like the short between the eye and nostril and wide between the eye look of the AMHA horse. Some of the ponies have such long, narrow heads...not a look I favor.


One of the biggest issues since I started is getting a nice head on a miniature horse. So many have heads that are as long as their neck. It doesn't matter if a horse is AMHA/AMHR or ASPC/AMHR there are bad heads.

I think this is a pretty Shetland head


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Feb 18, 2012)

kaykay said:


> One of the biggest issues since I started is getting a nice head on a miniature horse. So many have heads that are as long as their neck. It doesn't matter if a horse is AMHA/AMHR or ASPC/AMHR there are bad heads.
> 
> I think this is a pretty Shetland head


Very pretty but still a bit longer than I prefer...




My gelding, this is my type preference. Not the greatest pic, he was deciding if NoNoBadKitty was tasty.....


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Feb 18, 2012)

I think you will always have AMHR/ASPC breeders will always try to breed for smaller but hopefully the quality will continue. Also it still helps the ASPC as far as registration goes unless people start throwing papers away like people did last time. I think ASPC ponies are getting more popular.

I have been taking pics for horses for sale at a farm that breeds for AMHR/ASPC and some are just 1/2 shetland and they are the sweetest minis. It really has changed my mind on the AMHR/ASPC ponies.

Also I have seen some minis with ugly head and same goes with ASPC ponies, and both with pretty heads so I don't think its fair to say one has uglier heads then the other.


----------



## Minimor (Feb 18, 2012)

> Also I have seen some minis with ugly head and same goes with ASPC ponies, and both with pretty heads so I don't think its fair to say one has uglier heads then the other.


This is so very true, in all respects. I have seen some really awful mugs on some Shetlands, but at the same time some of the ugliest heads I've seen have been on Miniatures that hadn't had an actual Shetland in their pedigree for generations. Likewise I have seen some very pretty headed Minis, and there are Shetlands that have absolutely lovely heads.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Feb 18, 2012)

stormy said:


> Just a few thoughts not in any particular order
> 
> Don't see a problem with closing AMHA, there are more AMHA registered horses then there are Shetlands in ASPC or several other horse breeds, just need to be responsible in our breeding to eliminate dwarfism without a test.
> 
> ...






I totally agree with this. We really need a place for those of us who love the miniature type. Several have said that if AMHA does not follow the current trend they may lose members. I don't see that happening at all. In fact AMHR may lose members because there is less and less of a place in AMHR for those of us who love the AMHA type miniature horse. As far as the dwarfism problem almost every breed has something we as breeders need to look out for and avoid. As I said we also breed Thoroughbreds and our stallion has no Native Dancer in his pedigree or any other horse that is known to produce a lot of weak boned horses. I won't have a mare that has that up close in her pedigree either. It is our responsibly as breeders to avoid known defects. Cull a horse that produces a dwarf. It's that simple although I know not everyone will do it. I also don't think it is as big of a problem as it used to be. Breeders have been educated about dwarfism and are no longer really breeding for the smallest horse.

I also wish AMHA had a place for oversize horses but maybe that is something we can look into as we get more involved with AMHA.



Field-of-Dreams said:


> Very pretty but still a bit longer than I prefer...
> 
> View attachment 6391
> 
> ...






Love his head. I have a blue boy stallion that puts the nicest heads on a lot of his foals. haven't seen a Shetland imo with a head near as nice as what he produces


----------



## Riverdance (Feb 18, 2012)

AshleyNicole said:


> The founding Shetlands look nothing like the Shetlands in the AMHR show ring today. Rowdy and GMB were basically Shetlands and they look nothing like even some of the 34" and under Shetlands of today. I may get flamed but to me anyway AMHR is turning into a smaller division of ASPC and from talking to some of the judges this past year that is what the goal is. They know that people prefer a double registered horse and if that horse happens to be ASPC/AMHR instead of AMHA/AMHR thats better for them as they money stays in AMHR. I can understand that from a business stance but I prefer the look of AMHA type. Flame me if you like but this was what we were told from several AMHR judges this past year and why we are switching to AMHA shows.



I totally agree with you. I left AMHR years ago, because they are not a Miniature horse club, but just a Miniature registry. They are though, a Shetland horse club. I saw the writing on the wall years ago. AMHR was making tons of money for the Shetland club, and yet they had no say and were not allowed on the board. I still see tons of the AMHR money being spent on Shetland shows, one in particular that costs quite a bit of money for very few entries. Just because the show has been around for years.

I want to have some sort of say as to how my money is being spent. I also have said in the past, if I wanted a Shetland, I would breed for Shetlands. I really do not want to breed Mini Shetlands. Not to say that some of them are not beautiful, just not my type. They have longer heads than I prefer, narrower through the forehead too. Give me an AMHA Miniature head anytime.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Feb 18, 2012)

It's quite obvious that AMHA and AMHR are going different directions. Obviously AMHA members don't want to be involved with the shetlands and I can respect that and competely understand. More then likely the association will close their stud book entirely and hopefully it will be successful and the AMHA miniature will be strong. However I feel once its closed its closed forever otherwise if you open it back up your just saying that the AMHA miniature wasn't as strong as you once thought. I think more people will either choose AMHA or AMHR but I just don't see it in AMHA's favor. Hopefully I'm wrong and both will remain strong.

Yes the AMHR/ASPC orgization has its problems but I feel like its stronger then it has been the past few years.


----------



## LaVern (Feb 19, 2012)

I agree, the two are going in different directions. And for those of us that have tried to raise a more AMHA looking horse ( shorter back, pretty head, perhaps not as much high stepping movement, ect.) 36 inch horse, there doesn't seem to be much of a place. But it will be what it will be, and no one is making us register them either way.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Feb 19, 2012)

I guess I was hoping there would be a place for non Shetland minis in AMHR but that is less and less likely. I have several over minis that I will have to sell eventually for less than what I paid I'm sure. That is what is so bad about it. Where do over non Shetland minis go? There is less and less a place for them to show in AMHR. JMS I think closing the books is the right way to go and the first step to making miniatures a breed. I also don't think AMHA is struggling like people say, it can only get stronger if the studbook remains closed and people will show in AMHA as they realize that their non Shetland mini has less and less of a place in AMHR even in the under division. I see only positive things if the studbook remains closed the Thoroughbred studbook has been closed over 150 years and while there are some problems in the breed it has not over all affected the breed in a negative way.


----------



## Lewella (Feb 19, 2012)

> I see only positive things if the studbook remains closed the Thoroughbred studbook has been closed over 150 years and while there are some problems in the breed it has not over all affected the breed in a negative way.


Seriously? Thoroughbred breeders are incredibly concerned about the lack of genetic diversity in the breed! Why do you think AI is not allowed and only live cover? That was mandated to limit the number of foals a stallion could sire per year and help prevent the overuse of popular stallions from further reducing the gene pool. The growing popularity of stallions standing part of the year in the Northern Hemisphere and part of the year in the Southern Hemisphere and thus breeding almost year around is a huge concern in the Jockey Club and may result in furture registration rules because it too is reducing the genetic diversity of the breed. Thoroughbreds have, thanks to their lack of genetic diversity, developed horrible immune systems. No matter how routinely she's been vaccinated, a Thoroughbred mares colostrum often isn't good enough - foals are routinely given plasma shortly after birth to ensure they receive immunity. I could go on and on but lets suffice to say that the Thoroughbred could be used as the poster breed for why a narrow gene pool is not a good thing!


----------



## Magic (Feb 19, 2012)

If AMHA is closing the studbook because they are afraid of letting in ASPC papered horses, then I think it's a pity and a very short-sighted move. Why be afraid of progress? If the ponies had something horrible that AMHA was trying to keep out, like a disease, that would be one thing, but keeping out possible IMPROVEMENT to the "breed"? Come on! And if AMHA closes the studbook but doesn't make a provision for the foals that go over 34", born to registered, under parents, I really think that the registry is cutting its own throat.

I used to show both AMHA and AMHR when I got started with the minis (many eons ago) and one of my fillies was too tall to show as a yearling and two year old in AMHA because of the height limits, so I started showing much more in AMHR instead. That filly stayed under 34" as an adult, but I was already showing more in AMHR by then, and just didn't care to go back. The fact that a mini that goes over 34" isn't rejected by AMHR made that my registry of choice for showing in. I have AMHA registered horses too, and I have been regularly hardshipping horses in as well, ironically these are horses that have AMHA backgrounds but one of their parents had gone over so the foals weren't able to have AMHA papers until being hardshipped in. AMHA will be missing out on getting these kind of horses back into their registry, which will only hurt the registry in the long run.


----------



## Eohippus (Feb 19, 2012)

Magic said:


> If AMHA is closing the studbook because they are afraid of letting in ASPC papered horses, then I think it's a pity and a very short-sighted move. Why be afraid of progress? If the ponies had something horrible that AMHA was trying to keep out, like a disease, that would be one thing, but keeping out possible IMPROVEMENT to the "breed"? Come on! And if AMHA closes the studbook but doesn't make a provision for the foals that go over 34", born to registered, under parents, I really think that the registry is cutting its own throat.


Not every one sees ASPC ponies as an improvement to the breed; in this topic alone there was already a discussion on preferred head types. So to some the ponies may not be an improvement to the breed. However, I feel that there are ways around having ponies in AMHA, but having the books still open. Think about the pinto horse association. It doesn't allow known appaloosa within so many generations or any appaloosa characteristics. AMHA could, if they wanted to leave the stud books open but keep ASPC ponies out, have something saying that ASPC isn't allowed or characteristics/traits x, y, and z aren't allowed. AMHA could even have "types" like the PtHA and to be hard shipped a miniature must fit into one of the "types" and meet the approval of an inspector (yes, more costly to hardship but it would make it harder to hardship and most of a closed registry with out being closed).

The PtHA appaloosa rule is this:

"The PtHA does not accept any horses with Appaloosa, draft or mule breeding and/or characteristics or known breeding within the previous four generations, except for utility classified horses."


----------



## Magic (Feb 19, 2012)

But I don't understand why that "type" has to be kept out of AMHA; if it isn't preferred then why not just NOT breed with that background if it isn't the preferred type? It seems to me that it's fear of having to compete against them that is the biggest factor, unless I'm missing something?


----------



## ohmt (Feb 19, 2012)

No, you're right Magic. It's not wanting to compete against them. I am one that has recently purchased an AMHR/ASPC colt that I will later be using on some "A" mares (as long as he stays as gorgeous as he is) in the hopes to get his lovely proportions in smaller sizes. His head is actually beautiful by the way and I am really picky about heads. If AMHA doesn't keep their hardshipping open to AMHR horses, that will be a shame, but since finding an AMHA show around here is almost impossible unless I want to drive 9 hours, it's not going to hurt me that much.


----------



## Magic (Feb 19, 2012)

I just really worry about the future of AMHA if the book closes.



All of those "parents have gone over but the foal is under" registrations will be lost to the registry, as will the "parents are under but the foal is over" possible registrations. Unless, I guess, those horses' papers are kept regardless of the size of the horses? I guess it has been happening the entire time anyway, and there may be an even greater incentive to try to keep a horse's papers if they go over than before, since it won't be possible to get any future foals back into the registry.

Does this seem like a kind of "shooting themselves in the foot" sort of thing to anyone else? Or is it just me?


----------



## horsehug (Feb 19, 2012)

I agree with you completely, Magic, and really want to see them keep AMHA open to hardshipping.

I think there is always a possibility of it passing either next year or in the future, possibly with changes in the way it is written. I also hope someone someday comes up with a good cost effective way to let the members who do not make it to the meeting still vote so we all have a voice. If that had been the case this year I feel confident it would have passed, just looking at the numbers of people who signed the petition Little Hooves posted on here. It was 78!

Susan O.


----------



## stormy (Feb 19, 2012)

I find it absolutely hilarious the arguement that not allowing ASPC horses to cross register into AMHA is standing in the way of progress...AMHR closed the books against all outside hardshipping years ago....shutting out MANY individuals that might have improved the AMHR miniature horse...note I said individuals, not breeds...ASPC is not the only registry with individual animals of high quality.

AMHA certainly does not need the ASPC influence to improve and move the breed forward, just dedicated and careful breeders.


----------



## Charlotte (Feb 19, 2012)

I have a question and I hope someone can answer it for me.

I read so much on here about the concerns related to the miniature horse having such a limited/small gene pool.

In the 1990s, before Frank retired from the animal health industry, he was on the AMHA Genetics Committee and because of his business contacts was asked to contact various genetics laboratories regarding developing a DNA testing program for the AMHA miniature horse. At that time he was told that the AMHA American Miniature Horse had the most diverse gene pool of any modern day horse breed.

Has this diverse gene pool become greatly reduced in just 15 or so years? I didn't think that would be possible.

Does anyone have some facts for me?


----------



## Eohippus (Feb 19, 2012)

Charlotte said:


> I have a question and I hope someone can answer it for me.
> 
> I read so much on here about the concerns related to the miniature horse having such a limited/small gene pool.
> 
> ...


I think its entirely possible. Probably, maybe not as much, but... Look at Buckeroo and how popular his foals are. Or any of the real popular stallions of any time. It is possible for the majority of the breed to focus on a handful of stallions and the genetic diversity of the breed dwindle faster than one might expect


----------



## Charlotte (Feb 19, 2012)

Eohippus, thank you for your response. I'm really looking for some facts since we seem to have a lot of conjecture with no facts to base it on.

By the way, I would love to see a picture of your Houck horse. We showed so many Houcksters for a number of years.....wonderful horses!


----------



## shelia (Feb 19, 2012)

I think we allready have some shetland influence in AMHA. Not a lot of it, but we do see it at the shows. Perhaps a lot of people want to keep those numbers small to keep the prices up. Many people are liking that look. That could be why it was voted down by so many when a lot of us thought it seems to be the new hot look.

I know some people don't like the look, but everybody seems to have a different opinion on what a mini should look like anyway. I see in a different thread that the new standard of perfection passed. That kind of follows the new shetland look. I have to wonder why one passed and not the other. Just sayin.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Feb 19, 2012)

stormy said:


> I find it absolutely hilarious the arguement that not allowing ASPC horses to cross register into AMHA is standing in the way of progress...AMHR closed the books against all outside hardshipping years ago....shutting out MANY individuals that might have improved the AMHR miniature horse...note I said individuals, not breeds...ASPC is not the only registry with individual animals of high quality.
> 
> AMHA certainly does not need the ASPC influence to improve and move the breed forward, just dedicated and careful breeders.


AMHR is not competely closed. AMHR still accepts the hardshipping of AMHA, ASPC, and Fabella registeries. Yes AMHR is a semi-closed registry but it still gives the registry a chance to accept new minis into the registry that may help continue to improve and grow.

Could the law take into its own hands against the AMHA once it becomes a breed if it doesn't accepts all of its AMHA minis because they went over? I would think AMHA would need to allow registration and not disown them. I wonder what AMHA could become if they allowed a B division once they close the registry, would be interesting.


----------



## sfmini (Feb 19, 2012)

JMS, what law would they be breaking?

None.


----------



## Lewella (Feb 19, 2012)

It's a pretty simple scenario really sfminis - after AMHA closes the first horse AMHA attempts to exclude from registration due to being over 34" will likely result in AMHA being sued. The owner(s) will likely use the same arguements that were used in the AQHA embryo transfer lawsuit. In that suit the courts essentially ruled that AQHA x AQHA = AQHA. It didn't matter how the foal was conceived or how many were conceived, it didn't matter what color it was, etc. AQHA suddenly had no option but to register them. That is why there are now horses like Colonel Smokingun/Colonel Smoking Gun who are APHA and AQHA registered. AQHA can't exclude the crop outs or the double dilutes anymore thanks to the ruling in the ET lawsuit. AQHA can still penalize them in the show ring but they have to accept them for registration - they can no longer be a solid color registry like they were.


----------



## disneyhorse (Feb 19, 2012)

I wonder though, lewella, if they could come up with some sort of non-breeding papers. My friend breeds Friesians and said the registry will pull breeding rights of horses not meeting standards... But they do require keurings and approval...


----------



## Lewella (Feb 19, 2012)

Non-breeding papers would be an option or simply not allowing anything over 34" to show because they don't meet the breed standard. In many livestock breeds you show to the standard of perfection and it isn't at all unusual for some of the breeding stock to be either larger or smaller than the ideal set forth in the breed's standard of perfection.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Feb 20, 2012)

Lewella said:


> Seriously? Thoroughbred breeders are incredibly concerned about the lack of genetic diversity in the breed! Why do you think AI is not allowed and only live cover? That was mandated to limit the number of foals a stallion could sire per year and help prevent the overuse of popular stallions from further reducing the gene pool. The growing popularity of stallions standing part of the year in the Northern Hemisphere and part of the year in the Southern Hemisphere and thus breeding almost year around is a huge concern in the Jockey Club and may result in furture registration rules because it too is reducing the genetic diversity of the breed. Thoroughbreds have, thanks to their lack of genetic diversity, developed horrible immune systems. No matter how routinely she's been vaccinated, a Thoroughbred mares colostrum often isn't good enough - foals are routinely given plasma shortly after birth to ensure they receive immunity. I could go on and on but lets suffice to say that the Thoroughbred could be used as the poster breed for why a narrow gene pool is not a good thing!


Hmm....while there may be little genetic diversity I have read many studies on the subject and copied from one.  Inbreeding in today' s Thoroughbred is estimated to be about 14%, slightly higher than one would expect from a mating between half-siblings. However, much higher levels are seen on other breeds of livestock and some wild populations, and Cunningham and coworkers suggest that despite the small number of founders, the Thoroughbred has sufficient genetic diversity for modern breeding goals.

Enough about Thoroughbreds lol I suppose there are as many opinions about that subject as we have people in miniatures arguing over the genetic diversity in the miniature horse. My point is that yes in every breed even Shetlands you have faults that come with breeding. Closing the registry can work as long as one or two stallions don't dominate, I agree Buckaroo line is prevalent but I can't believe that the miniature horse in about 10-15 years has gone from having one of the most diverse gene pools to the dire straits many claim it is in today. lol

 I agree I really hope AMHA makes a place for those who go over 34" That to me would be another step toward making the miniature horse a breed. Like some said if the horse goes over make maybe they can be breeding stock.


----------



## Little Hooves (Feb 22, 2012)

Hey everyone, sorry I have not been around to repost any updates... Obviously the rule change did not pass, but after diving head-first into this only days before the Annual Meeting, I was quite rushed and also realize that this rule that was presented this year was not well written. I've been able to hear about concerns from all sides and opinions from everyone. And I am actually working with a few other people to write a new rule change and new section essentially that will cover issues regarding hardshipping... and hopefully it will pass... and hopefully many of you will be in favor of it passing!

I wanted to address that miniatures are likely not threatened at this stage with genetic depression due to closing the registry. This usually happens with severely bottle-necked populations or horses that share many of the same genes (like a popular sire for example). And many of the points I addressed in my papers were to say that miniatures are not completely immune to the effects of these issues. The reality is, it's completely unpredictable, so why not keep your chances reduced as much as possible?

My thoughts are, though, if you're going to close the studbook, you are promoting the same dishonesty you tried to cut off (by refusing to allow oversized horses to be hardshipped into AMHA) - now people will be tempted to keep papers on horses born into AMHA that go over, because they know there is no way for that horse's offspring to be included in the registry. It is something that I agree could spark a lawsuit. Of course, I am in favor of keeping the books open for multiple reasons, and I will continue to refine and add to those reasons


----------

