# AMHR Draft Type Halter Class



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 24, 2011)

This class was offered at the Arkansas State Fair at the AMHR/ASPC show. This was the biggest halter class at the show period and seeing it personally and being involved with it I think honestly I see this class being like Western CPD and seeing the big success that class has been I can see the same success with the draft halter class. May even get more people involved in the actual draft driving. I would like to see this class be offered at AMHR Nationals next year as a NR class, if we can do Roadster In-Hand I don't see why we can't offer this.

This is the type they are looking for, this horse placed 4th out of 10.







What do you all think?


----------



## lucky seven (Oct 24, 2011)

I don't know too much about the different types of minis for showing, but doesn't he look fat? Do the draftier types founder more easily than the more skinny ones? My boy looks like a little qh and I am always worried about his weight. Thanks for the pic, really liked it. I learn alot by reading and looking.


----------



## Little Wolf Ranch (Oct 24, 2011)

I think it would be very beneficial to those who have the stockier built but still correct miniatures to have a class of there own to compete in. I would personally really like to see this class added!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 24, 2011)

It's an old pic of him not in show condition He does have a wide barrel on him, so he always looks heavy but if he looses too much fat he really sucks in at his flanks. Plus take off the hair he looks fine. He has never foundered, his only problem is he is prone to choke so he has to be on a all hay diet. You can't even really give him a cookie cause he just tries to swallow it and not chew it.

This is him in show condition.


----------



## Performancemini (Oct 24, 2011)

How would they add it? I would guess it would be like solid or multi color classes. The regular "breed" class doesn't designate a "type" (ie. arab, qh, etc.) and that is the class that goes on to CH. and Grand. And would it be 'draft-type at halter' ; would a QH build go it that; yet still cross into the other also? There would be a lot of variables to iron out first. Not saying it might not be nice to have-we've shown in Draft team and have a few that could fit that class. But a couple of them have also done well enough in the Ammy or reg. classes too. Interested in hearing what others think too.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Oct 24, 2011)

Would have loved to show our stallion Sky in that class but my dog got really sick and couldn't go but Bill was one of the people the one running it. I think having that as a National Class is a great idea. We would love to have a place for the draft type miniature horse in halter. There is more than one type of mini and it would be fun to show in that type of class at the National level. This is who I would show in that class...he is in show shape here but looks a lot like this now



We would be all for this class and I think that it should be set up like a color or model class. Did the QH type show in that class at the fair?


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Oct 24, 2011)

I would LOVE it!


----------



## REO (Oct 24, 2011)

I think I would call it Miniature Foundation Halter





Some minis are drafty, but some look like the old style QH. Different types of stocky. So "foundation" kinda covers all the "types"





I think it'd be a neat class!


----------



## AshleyNicole (Oct 24, 2011)

REO said:


> I think I would call it Miniature Foundation Halter
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great idea!!


----------



## Lizzie (Oct 24, 2011)

Foundation = Great idea.

Lizzie


----------



## Riverrose28 (Oct 24, 2011)

As everyone else has said, Foundation, sounds great! It is hard for us that have mini's to compete against the ASPC/AMHR minis that have that shetland look. Also I think it would bring entries up at all levels once given a chance.


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Oct 24, 2011)

Foundation, yes, draft, no. I LOVE the thought of a Foundation class. My gelding got his HoF several years ago, but at 34.5" just canNOT compete against the Shetland blood anymore.


----------



## bullockcorner (Oct 24, 2011)

Would LOVE to see this class. However....would there need to be any special requirement such as the horse must be shown in draft driving class to show in halter? We planned on going to this show and showing our draft hitch, AND entering that class, but....$$$ came up (or rather the lack thereof).

If this class is meant for the "draft in hand" like the "roadster in hand", should that mean it is for the true draft driving horses? If so, I agree with what someone else said, in that it could generate a lot more interest in draft driving if we had another class to show our horses in. Or, if people want just a "draft _type" _ halter class, would everyone who had a _slightly_ "stockier" build of mini that doesn't compete quite as well in the "regular" halter classes enter? Then, the trend would tend to start working toward the finer, classier type again, as judges might lean towards that preference. I don't think it would be feasable to try to have any kind of mandatory conformational requirement, as you'd get into a whole slew of discussions/arguements about type, etc.

Anyway, here is my opinion, for as little as it's worth: I don't think we should try to have a "draft _type"_ halter class right now, as there will be all kinds of clammor to have "draft type" model, "draft type" yearling, etc, etc. It would start a whole new division of miniature horses, and some might even say we're going _backward_ in the evolution of the miniature horse. Again, my opion would be to have a "draft in hand" class or something similiar.

O.K, I've said more than I intended, but as we have a draft driving team, I felt obligated. I'm sure I'll be flamed for my opinion, but it wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Oct 24, 2011)

I personally think it makes MUCH more sense to add classes like that rather then Roadster in Hand at our AMHR National show


----------



## Jill (Oct 24, 2011)

I would not be interested in seeing that offered... I like the halter classes to reward both good conformation and the preferred type (and feel they now do). Of course, I'd probably like it if I preferred a drafty type of mini.


----------



## Riverrose28 (Oct 24, 2011)

I'm not so sure about going backwards! But, I will say that a lot of mini people get discouraged going to shows and can't compete against the ASPC/AMHR horse either A or B. Mostly those A horses that go slightly over. I've seen judges place an ASPC/AMHR horse that toes out over a straight legged mini simply because of that head and neck. I think it would help bring in funding for the shows at the local level as well as for Nationals. Problem being it would have to be brought up and in writing, and yes it would need alot of added classes. Youth, Ametuer, Open, they already have the driving class, why not extend it to halter division. I also don't like the word Stock or Draft, I think foundation souds better. I've been saying for years that the ASPC/AMHR need a separate division, well if you can't do that then how about a foundation mini division. It would improve revenue and get some more folks out showing and promoting.


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 24, 2011)

I think there should be some extra thought put into this... and what the IDEAL TYPE would actually look like.

There is a stereotype here, and what some people call "Arabian type" does not always mean the mini looks like and Arabian to others, and what you say "draft type" does not necessarily mean it looks like a draft to me.

I AM A DRAFT HORSE PERSON. I love draft horses. I work with registered draft horses (Clydesdale, Shire, Belgian, Percheron, Spotted, etc.) full-time, five days a week. They are magnificent, gorgeous animals... powerful and beautiful. I make a point to go to the fair specifically to watch them show.

Are we talking Amish-plow-horse drafts, or Show-type drafts?

Just so you know, today's draft horses that are winning in halter look like this:











(Images from Windermere Farm Percherons, their beautiful stallions)

They have long, refined legs, can break level at the trot, have very upright necks. Is this what you want your little minis to look like?

Or, are we going for "farm style" draft horses? Because these are working horses that are not shown in halter. They are very tractable, have good work ethics. But they are not show horses, not shown in halter.

So when we have a horse show, it is to SHOW fancy horses. Working horses are for working. I don't know, that's my philosophy. If I had a chunky Amish-style horse, I would show it in showmanship, obstacle driving... those things which it will excel at. There are classes for EVERY horse, I guarantee you... I'm just not sure we need to make more.

In the Shetlands, take a look at the Foundation classes they have. Those ponies do NOT look like the European shetlands. They still are pretty, upright, refined show horses.

Just my point of view, food for thought.

I LOVE DRAFT HORSES... and I think that there are stereotypes that draft horses are chunky, have more body-to-leg, thick lowset necks, and are mellow.

Andrea


----------



## AshleyNicole (Oct 24, 2011)

I don't think that having a drafter type or fountation type of mini is going backward...just another type. That should be what we focus on. If you love Arabs well great you can have an Arab type of miniature. Like QH then great get a QH type and also draft types etc. If you want to attact people to miniatures I think you should have a place for all types. Maybe we should have an example of what should be in the class, but I think that this is a great idea...of course things should be ironed out but a great idea.


----------



## Jill (Oct 24, 2011)

disneyhorse said:


> I think there should be some extra thought put into this... and what the IDEAL TYPE would actually look like.



What I've felt over the years is that people assign the terms "draft type" or "quarter horse style" to minis that just are coarsely made and thick compared to "show type" minis... Which doesn't really mean those minis are at all like "mini draft horses" nor "mini quarter horses". Most minis that I hear people say are "draft type" or "quarter horse style" are not so (imo), but are just kind of poorly made examples. To me, below is a mini that H and I own that really looks like a mini QH, but I don't think he looks too much like what is often held out to be a stock or draft type mini....


----------



## bullockcorner (Oct 24, 2011)

I apologize for suggesting draft minis are going "backward" from what the prefernce of style is right now. Bad choice of words. BUT....I see this topic as going off the OP's original question (and maybe I had something to do with it). I don't _think_ OP meant should we start a whole new division of miniatures. I THINK the question was about one class directed at the miniatures that we drive in the _draft mini classes._ Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Not that the topic of a whole 'nother division of minis doesn't/hasn't been discussed!



If I misunderstand I'm sorry, but to answer the question of adding a single halter draft _class_, I say "Yes!" - with some kind of guidance as far as "draft in hand".


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 24, 2011)

Would docked tails be allowed? Would they be shown with the white leather bridles that drafts are typically shown in? What about mane rolls/flowers/tail buns?

How close to the "real deal" are we looking at?

The miniature horse strives to be a replica of a horse in miniature. So, are we stereotyping or going for reality?

Andrea


----------



## midnight star stables (Oct 24, 2011)

VERY interesting and "hot" topic...






I am one who likes the idea... However, I do think there are TWO different ideas here. One being a "Foundation" halter class, and a "Draft" halter or in-hand class.

In reference to the "Draft" class, I love Bullockcorner's thoughts of making it a "in-hand" class, and having the horses work the rail, wear the braids and draft style halters - Sounds great! It would be like the NR Roadster-In-Hand, and Model classes.





The "Foundation" halter would open a huge can of worms. Do you want a new division? Or just a class identical to Model? Would it be for just A's and B's, or mares, stallions and geldings in both A's and B's? I personally like this class concept a little less, just because I see ASPC's Foundations, and they are not what people here are thinking. Very extreme and flashy horses are winning the Foundation classes there.

Just my 2 cents. I voted Yes.


----------



## Riverrose28 (Oct 24, 2011)

Maybe I misunderstood the op too. I was thinking of halter, but don't want any minis that look like a shire or belgion. One point I would like to make. take it or leave it. If Boones Buckaroo was taken to this years National AMHR show, he wouldn't have placed. Sadly to say he is foundation type, not what the judges are placing now! since he doesn't have that ASPC head and neck he would have gotten the gate if no one knew his name. shame but reality. I was speculating on foundation and the op was saying draft, so I'll shut up!


----------



## AshleyNicole (Oct 24, 2011)

Riverrose28 said:


> Maybe I misunderstood the op too. I was thinking of halter, but don't want any minis that look like a shire or belgion. One point I would like to make. take it or leave it. If Boones Buckaroo was taken to this years National AMHR show, he wouldn't have placed. Sadly to say he is foundation type, not what the judges are placing now! since he doesn't have that ASPC head and neck he would have gotten the gate if no one knew his name. shame but reality. I was speculating on foundation and the op was saying draft, so I'll shut up!



I think thats what I was thinking as well. I agree with your point, more and more you need a ASPC bred horse to have a chance at an AMHR show in halter. I'll shut up as well lol since we aren't talking about foundation really which is what I'd like to see.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 24, 2011)

I wouldn't want to make this class difficult





I think at this time if they add it it would just be a draft type class, all ages, one under, one over. Now at the show they had them all braided like they were going into a draft halter class. I was just picturing ok type, just the draft build, not a draft halter class. So I just showed my horse like a regular class, he was the only one not braided and still managed to pull a 4th. I'm picturing a draft type more of the older style, thicker boned, more of a performance halter class I guess you can say. I have a mini that is a qh built but I would not put in this class as I don't think he belongs in it and AMHR isn't going for the really refined boned horses like that are placing in AMHA.

I think to get more people interest in this class we need to make it easier for everyone and not make it mandatory that you have to show in a draft driving class. However maybe down the road, if this class gets HUGE as I think it can maybe make it mandatory. But IMO if they want to keep it as a draft type vs a draft halter class its just another halter class. I certaintly don't want to make a new divison. If its big perhaps make it a rated class, but I don't think we need to have so many different classes.

I've always wanted to add a foundation division for the minis but so many were against it so I let it go, but I'll keep dreaming for it


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 24, 2011)

Why does it have to be a "DRAFT" type? Why not have "Arabian" type halter classes? "Saddlebred" type classes?

Are you all thinking "Sport Horse" perhaps? Would that be a more correct handling of the "TYPE" you are looking for? Or perhaps "Warmblood" type? "Stock Horse" type?

Currently, there is no one "type" that is specified in halter that the miniature horse is supposed to be... so how do you start to break it all down?

Andrea


----------



## Riverrose28 (Oct 24, 2011)

disneyhorse said:


> Why does it have to be a "DRAFT" type? Why not have "Arabian" type halter classes? "Saddlebred" type classes?
> 
> Are you all thinking "Sport Horse" perhaps? Would that be a more correct handling of the "TYPE" you are looking for? Or perhaps "Warmblood" type? "Stock Horse" type?
> 
> ...


You're right there is no breed standard or type to the miniature horse. Problem is there are alot of the old fashioned mini', buckaroo type, that don't stand a snowballs chance in h___ of placing at the National level. Mini's can't compete against the modern mini. I do think In my opinion that a standard is evolving, but what happens to the others? Now I'm talking about foundation, not draft, heaven forbid we should have minis that look like a belgion, but what do the mini people do when their minis look like a mini not a shetland? Do they not show? If they show do they place? I'm talking about halter not performance. What happens to all the horses that don't look like shetlands? Just something to think about. any way I'll attach a picture of my Grand sons mini, he is 34 & 1/2"s tall he can show, but can't win against the shetland look a likes.



This horse got 10 in model and nothing else, this type of horse can't compete against the ASPC/AMHR horse.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 24, 2011)

We don't need a arabian type or saddlebred type as thats whats winning already.

I would be perfectly fine calling it performance halter, and make it to where you have to show in a performance class to compete. But to my original question I'm just talking about the class that was being presented at the show this weekend was draft type halter, and have it as a non rated class.

AMHR Draft Type Halter, Under

AMHR Draft Type Halter, Over

Make it available to anybody. You can cross over if you show in regular halter. No championship classes involved. Seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## Jill (Oct 24, 2011)

I doubt this is going to go over well with the audience, but it sounds to me like we're talking about a "can't place well in the real halter classes" class.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 24, 2011)

Well to each their own. I just thought it would be a fun class to those of us who still have the older foundation built horses. It was nice too see a big class full of foundation built minis, and not to mention being the biggest halter class of the show.

My intention for this topic wasn't meant to take anything away from the regular halter classes. It also wasn't meant to be oh my horse can't place because of these darn shetlands. I was picturing it like what they have done for Wester CPD. People have said when they first introduced the western driving that we are taking a step back, these are just horses that can't place in country. Guess what same thing with this class. Driving horses have got better, our use to be country horses had no place to go, so they created western to keep people into showing. The western class is now huge to almost as big as country, defintelly bigger then pleasure. So why can we do that for drivers but we can't do that for our foundation built halter horses?

Sure there will be some people not at all interested in this class, obviously, and thats fine, same for some who aren't interested in western. But there are people out there that like both, and I think would be very interested in having a class like this.


----------



## Riverrose28 (Oct 24, 2011)

Castle Rock Miniatures said:


> Jill, I don't think it's a matter of the "real" halter classes. What you're talking about is the "current" halter classes -- minis that are either (quite frankly) Shetland horses (in the AMHR) -- bred for that certain look, movement and fire or those minis that are 'wanta-be's such as the extremely refined.
> 
> I, believe, instead, that it is a matter of taste -- those that prefer the look of the horses that showed even just a few years ago -- BEFORE Shetlands entered the picture (again, in the AMHR). To many (myself included), the horses of just a few years ago (or many years ago) still look like big horses in miniature -- but to clarify, I am still NOT talking about the 'extreme' show horses.
> 
> ...


Amen! you said it so well!


----------



## Jill (Oct 24, 2011)

Yeah, I don't want to argue either, Diane. It's easier to just share sincere opinions. Good minis without ASPC blood do still win. I'm happy with halter being what I think it has always been -- the class that showcases the best of the breed. We each decide what classes and what wins are personally meaningful to us as owners, enthusiasts, and breeders.


----------



## Riverrose28 (Oct 24, 2011)

At the risk of being flamed, I've been to Nationals in the last five years, I'm not talking about AMHA Worlds witch is altogether different, look at the winning horses, all ASPC/AMHR, they win at Congress then at Nationals the foundation mini's may place in performance and a few in youth or as ours that I submitted a photo of but not Champion level, it has nothing to do with conformation, it has to do with the look. As I've said before I've seen horses place that toe out in front over horse with straight legs, and my horse were not it the classes, it was the look, the head and neck. the foundation type mini is being fazed out. What is to become of these horses? I've been saying for years I need to jump on the band wagon with ASPC but havn't had the money with this economy, why not add a foundation class or two that is NR? What is it going to hurt? It may get more people showing and spending money.


----------



## Jill (Oct 24, 2011)

I have some recent year AMHR National champions and top tens / fives / threes from large halter classes yet own no ASPC horses. A lot of what is held out as foundation / draft / quarter horse type in minis is just not where the breed should go IMO. This isn't the first time this topic has come up on LB, and it always kind of sounds the same. I don't want to see us lower the bar.


----------



## AshleyNicole (Oct 24, 2011)

Unless you have a very small miniature it is hard for a straight miniature to win in halter in AMHR. The horses that win Grand are Shetland miniature or have Shetland blood in them. I think when it comes down to it we want a class for our "type" horses. I have a over straight miniature that I bought from Erica and I doubt she would win in an over class in halter because she does not have the shetland look. She has nice conformation and a very nice horse but not the type to win today. I think a 32" and under straight miniature would do fine but any larger and you will have a hard time. I like the look of the shetland type but not really what I am going for, and yes we also have recent year top tens and Bare is a res. champion but that style is going out I think in AMHR. Which is why we are thinking about switching to AMHA


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Oct 24, 2011)

Castle Rock Miniatures said:


> Right! And I have had National Top Tens and All-Star tops too -- but several years ago, since the economy deleted my ability to show within recent years.
> 
> What I believe, (my opinion) is that the Registry (AMHR) is a large group of paid members who support the registry as a 'whole' and therefore it should offer the 'whole registry of miniature horse owners/breeders/enthusists' an opportunity to showcase all styles of miniatures -- just like it showcases all styles/types of Shetlands.
> 
> ...



Exactly my thoughts! If we can have FOUR divisions for the ponies, why not two for the Minis? Some like Classics, others prefer the look of Moderns, but they are still Shetlands. Same with the Minis.


----------



## ohmt (Oct 24, 2011)

I would LOVE if a foundation halter class was offered. I think there would be a lot of people VERY surprised at how large the class sizes would be. I could see a lot of people bringing out some of their retired show horses for another run.

Would love to show this little guy in it:





He's not as refined and 'stretchy' as the horses winning in AMHR today, but he is very beautiful and very well put together.


----------



## Jill (Oct 24, 2011)

I understand what you're saying, Diane, but my opinion is as I stated before.

One of the great things about showing minis is there are so many different ways they can currently compete.


----------



## Shaladar (Oct 24, 2011)

Castle Rock Miniatures said:


> Right! And I have had National Top Tens and All-Star tops too -- but several years ago, since the economy deleted my ability to show within recent years.
> 
> What I believe, (my opinion) is that the Registry (AMHR) is a large group of paid members who support the registry as a 'whole' and therefore it should offer the 'whole registry of miniature horse owners/breeders/enthusists' an opportunity to showcase all styles of miniatures -- just like it showcases all styles/types of Shetlands.
> 
> ...


I agree. It sadly will probably never happen, but I agree. If we want to show at Halter, why should we be "forced" to buy "Shetlands, shetland type, etc."? I know, I know, several people say it is the breed "evolving". Well, "evolving" isn't always a good thing. I , and I am sure others, much prefer the look of , well I guess the "foundation"? Mini, of just a few years ago*. What is currently winning in the Halter pen are wonderful, lovely horses, and I greatly admire them*, but I prefer a different "type". I'm a QH person thru and thru....LOL. I've already decided that if I want to continue to show , it will have to be in the performance area. (which is why we haven't shown for 2 years)

I think a "foundation", "performance" or whatever it should be called, class would be great. Well, it would be great until the winners of the height classes decide to show in it to get another "win".

Just my opinion. And yes, I've only been breeding (very sparingly) and showing Miniatures for about 17 years, so I haven't been around as long as some of you. And I still have some of my original horses, one which is a Reserve World Champion and wouldn't even get a glance these days. But I still think he's wonderful.

Very interesting idea.

Now, please note that I have not said anything against what is currently winning. I think they are lovely horses, so please, please don't twist my words.

Sue


----------



## ohmt (Oct 24, 2011)

Thanks Diane! He is just a little guy at 27.25" so I plan on showing him next year in the 28" and under senior halter classes regardless. I just think it would be fun to show him in a foundation class too as that is more of the type he is-maybe he could finally beat out some of his taller counterparts





I am actually more for the taller, shetland type and I will most likely be sharing some 'news' here in the next couple of months, but I also like a correct horse no matter what type. I think it's why I have so many horses! lol


----------



## roxy's_mom (Oct 24, 2011)

I would love to see another class added for those of us who have the older stockier type minis. I currently have two that I would love to put into a halter class but they don't look anything like what's winning today and I'm not going to waste my money or time for a class that I'm not even going to be looked at in. Both are built square and wide and could easily pull off the draft type look - clear down to the mane rolls/tail buns/rosette if that's what they were wanting. I prefer to have a horse with a little more substance to it that can be an all around performance horse and not do just one thing.

I would love to be able to have an even playing field for my horses to compete in. We need to have classes for those of us who have the horses that can't compete against the current trend of halter horses - most of our horses that can't compete in the halter division have to do performance in order to accomplish anything in the AMHR show ring - IMO only!!

Here's pictures of the two I'm talking about:

This is Roxy at our county fair last year (she also drives!)and yes she is a little on the tubby side.







This is Chyanne - taken summer 2009 - working on breaking her to drive






Both will probably be out showing next year in driving or trail for AMHR but not in any halter classes except local open shows or our county fair.

Becky


----------



## Minimor (Oct 24, 2011)

I do have to laugh at some of the comments regarding "horse in miniature" and "Shetland type". In my view many of the most "horse like" of the small equine ARE the Shetlands. Sorry, but as I see it the ponies are more perfectly proportioned small horses than most Miniatures are. Todays Shetlands are NOT shaped like "ponies"--they are most certainly small horses.

It doesn't have to be under 34" to be a 'miniature' Arab, or warmblood, or Morgan. A perfect miniature Percheron might very well be a 12 hand pony of some sort, while the perfect miniature warmblood might be a 43" Shetland. My Timmie I refer to as a miniature Saddlebred; he is 44" tall. There are some very horse like Miniatures, it is true, but in a lot of cases it is simply a matter of the owner looking at the horse with a slightly biased eye! I've known people to point at their dwarf mini and proclaim that 'he is a miniature horse, he has horse proportions and horse papers & is therefore a horse and not a pony'.

It matters not at all to me if AMHR adds a Foundation class or even an entire division (as long as local shows aren't forced to include it) but I don't think that such a division is going to work out quite as some are imagining it will. Yes, the Shetlands do have several divisions, but there is still unhappiness when it comes to the type that is being shown in those divisions. There is absolutely nothing to stop someone from showing a Modern as a Classic, or a Classic as a Foundation. I've got a Modern Pleasure mare that is eligible for her Foundation seal--I could send in my $10 and get that seal & show her Foundation. I have no intention of doing that, but I could if I were so inclined, and it could happen that some judge(s) would use her even if she's the wrong type. Even though emphasis is supposed to be on type I know for a fact that there are judges who will refuse to place lesser conformation/better type over better conformation/less type. I've heard many complaints about off type ponies winning in Foundation. If it happens in the Shetland classes it will happen in the Mini classes too.


----------



## Performancemini (Oct 25, 2011)

Minimor-I agree with your statements 100%! The Shetlands definitely have their "type" troubles, especially recently in the Foundation division. Don't get me wrong-I have owned and shown sheltlands and love them; love my minis too. It makes me see why my husband always preferred the performance classes over halter (though he is showing a gelding in halter these last couple of years that is a beautiful boy and proved it in the limited showing we are able to do).


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (Oct 25, 2011)

I would be interested in adding a Foundation Halter class. A foundation QH looks nothing like a foundation Arab, so I don't see why the fact that a foundation shetland is not a bulky, stocky animal should have anything to do with it.



Each one is supposed to hearken back to the original foundation stock of the relevant breed, something that could still do the job they were originally bred to do. Sort of like Andrea's show drafts versus farm drafts- why shouldn't the farm drafts have somewhere to show off their training and talents? Not everyone shows to show off a flashy horse. Some of us want to show off our training.

Anyway, love the idea. I would love it even more if we also used foundation GROOMING in that class. No razoring, no expectation that the horse must be close-clipped or have no mane, just well-groomed for its individual type, clean and neat. What fun that would be!

Leia


----------



## kaykay (Oct 25, 2011)

I have always been for a Foundation miniature division. I think it will bring more people out to show and give those that prefer the more foundation type a place to showcase their minis.

I voted yes but I do not think it should be a NR class.

Just because a mini is foundation TYPE doesnt mean it has poor conformation. I adore my foundation Shetlands.

But as said a foundation division is not always the ultimate answer as we have had trouble with it in the Shetland divisions.



> Exactly my thoughts! If we can have FOUR divisions for the ponies, why not two for the Minis? Some like Classics, others prefer the look of Moderns, but they are still Shetlands. Same with the Minis.


You can but you have to have someone write it up and ask for it.

A group of you should get together and present it just like a group did for the Shetlands. Not sure if this falls under a rule change proposal? Hmm.

To make it a success you would really have to get the word out and try to get some local shows to list the classes.


----------

