# AMHR/ASPC Cross Enter at SAME SHOW Proposal



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 17, 2012)

It has been discussed here before and probably should again before Convention.

Add or Delete: Add to AMHR; Classic sections

AMHR: AMHR horses that are also registered ASPC may show AMHR and ASPC at the

same show.

ASPC: ASPC horses that are also registered AMHR may show ASPC and AMHR at the

same show.

Effective Date: 12/01/2012

Committees Referred: AMHR Classic Rules

If you feel strongly for or against this be sure to attend both AMHR and ASPC Committees as I believe it will be presented to both.

The way I see it is this yes it may bring in more money to shows, but at the same time I can see shows be added a day. It would be more of a advantage to own a AMHR/ASPC pony when you can enter in double the classes and that includes double the points. Which in turn would help more so for the AMHR/ASPC breeder and continue to take away business for the breeder who does not breed for ASPC papered ponies, which in AMHR you see the AMHR/ASPC pony continues to be more popular in the show ring. They say that this might bring in more interest for ASPC to grow and gain more exhibitors for Congress which they do need since this year's Congress lost significant money and the President himself said in the Journal that the Congress numbers don't look favorable. But in turn you don't have to qualify for Congress like you do for Nationals. Also as of right now it's not like once you show as a Miniature you cannot show as a Shetland. You have a choice as to where you show that pony in and I feel that since you do not need to qualify to show at Congress I don't see a reason why to put this rule into place. You can still show at both Congress and Nationals and you can still show that AMHR/ASPC pony at one show as a Miniature and the next show as a Shetland, no one is stopping you from making that choice. If you want to get a HOF for that pony say in Halter as a Miniature and as a Shetland then show him/her as a Mini and once you get that continue to show as a Shetland. It's just allowing it to be done quicker then you would currently and would have to continue to show. Want more Shetlands to show at local shows then allow qualification for Congress say just one show, make those Shetlands show at least one show then I would be more in favor for this rule to pass.


----------



## Maple Hollow Farm (Oct 17, 2012)

I also dont see any reason for this rule to be passed because of the reasons you state. When will the committee meetings be held at convention?


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 17, 2012)

AMHR committee is on Thursday 11/8 at 8:30 AM

Classic committee is on Friday 11/9 at 8:30 AM


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 17, 2012)

I personally don't see those as disadvantages.

I would love the option as it would make more opportunities for someone in our registry to show and get involved.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 17, 2012)

I am very opposed to this. I hope it does not pass.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 17, 2012)

Here are a few thoughts...

First the legal consideration.  We allow ASPR who are also ASPC to show both ways at the same show.  Are we not descriminating against ASPC/AMHR horses by not allowing them to do the same?  We issue them sets of papers for two different breeds yet we prohibit them from showing as one of those breeds at shows that offer both breeds.  Would this stand up in court if someone choose to challenge it?  

The cross entering rule as it stands right now was passed back in 1996 at the General Membership meeting.  The reasoning for passing it was that the AMHR people wanted to keep the ASPC ponies from showing in AMHR.  It is quite obvious that the rule had the opposite effect.  All it managed to do was prevent ASPC/AMHR horses from showing as Shetlands.  If you had to choose with your ASPC/AMHR horse which would you choose?  How many of you have choosen to show exclusively AMHR because that is where you points are after you have finished qualifying for Nationals?  Many of these horses would also show ASPC if they could do both at the same show thus boosting the ASPC class numbers that this cross entering rule has hurt.  

Many small local shows would be helped by removing the prohibition on cross entering as well.  They would be able to collect two sets of entry fees for one animal like they do for those showing ASPR and ASPC at the same show.  Shows where the ASPC classes are in danger of being cut because of lack of entries might gain enough entries to keep the ASPC classes.  Shows that would like to add ASPC classes but need entries in order to do so would also benefit.  

Ultimately this isn't an AMHR issue, it is an ASPC issue because it isn't the AMHR this rule has hurt, it is the ASPC.

More to come ...


----------



## LaVern (Oct 17, 2012)

YaSir, I think you pretty much nailed it. When you are owned by someone you don't don't get to make the rules, no matter how it is going to affect you. You just beg to the master and take what you get.


----------



## Belinda (Oct 17, 2012)

"Ultimately this isn't an AMHR issue, it is an ASPC issue because it isn't the AMHR this rule has hurt, it is the ASPC."

Really ???? How can you say that ! If it involves the Mini side of shows it does effect the AMHR and they should have a say .. And I believe that there are many that think if it passes then it will HURT the AMHR division and it is their right to believe that , the same as your right to think the other way ..

do you Holly have mini's / ponies that you want to show in both divisions at the same show If this passes ? I personally would not want to over use my horse by showing two different divisions at the same show, You also got to think of all the horses that will end up being put in 15 or 20 classes and worked to death just because they can.. !!

And yes I know the ASPR can cross enter , but those folks usually are driving and I hate to say but they don't over enter their ponies like some of the Mini are .. example if a ASPR is a Road Pony that is all it is entered in they don't drive them as Pleasure Ponies and don't Jump or do obstacle ,

So really I do believe this is a proposal that does effect AMHR horses ..


----------



## mdegner (Oct 17, 2012)

Oh I just bet I know where this one came from........

What LaVern says....


----------



## Minimor (Oct 17, 2012)

Belinda, I'm so sorry was I not supposed to comment on this either? Tsk.

No as a matter of fact I do not have any double registered horses that I want to show both ways. I don't have any double registered ones at all at this point in time. I might have one in a couple years but would I show him AMHR? Quite possibly not. I like showing ponies--minis, not so much. So, my above post was not at all self serving.

I would never over use a horse at a show. I would rather take a horse out in the ring 3 times and have him brilliant all three times than to take him out in 10 classes and have him dull and exhausted in the lady ones. That is actually my objection to this rule change proposal--some people DO overuse their horses if the classes ate available...though they deny doing it.

For sure there are a number of shows where the AMHR classes wouldnt be affected at all by this rule change -- the double registered horses already show AMHR-- so the only effect of allowing them to show both would be in the pony classes. The AMHR exhibitors wouldn't notice any difference at all in their classes.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 18, 2012)

This is the story of an old American Family named the ASPC Family, their first child being the American Shetland Pony. From the beginning the new ASPC Family Parents were wonderful. They watched their children grow and nurtured them though hard and trying times. Always being careful that they did not stray or go down the wayward path. For years and generations they basked in the glory of their children and grand children and great grandchildren.

As things sometimes go, in all families, some of the children went astray and started mingling with those of different, would you say attributes and attitudes. Well, as it does happen in all families, these wayward children begat children of their own. Some of these ill conceived offspring were very athletic and some were very beautiful and hard to not love.

So, what were the Parents to do? Well, even though these illegitimate descendants were different and not a good example of family planning , they did what all good parents would do. They opened their arms, took them in and set another plate, at the table. They were legally adopted and granted all family privileges.

During this time also, there was a group that perhaps went too far down the crooked road and started cavorting with a particular short bunch. Before you knew it there were more illegitimate offspring with shorter limbs and rather a docile demeanors. And wouldn't you know it, they too wanted to be part of a family.

Well, this is were things get a little fuzzy. For some reason these little guys, some of which also had documented parentage were not quite so welcomed into the Family.

The Parents did however agree to let them join the family as foster children. They would be their foster Parents.

These stubby little illegitimate fellows were so grateful to have a place to call home that they readily agreed to blindly follow all family rules without question and forfit all revenues that they would bring into the family.

Things were a little shakey the first few years, within this newly extended family, as there wasn't much guidance and these foster children were so prolific that it was hard to keep up with them, but because there were so many or them and they were in such great demand, the family grew richer.

But, even with the money coming in, the legitimate family heirs became a little envious of these outsiders. It seemed that everyone loved them and they just loved to be in the public eye.

It wasn't long before the sibling rivalry began, The real kids wanted some of the attention, so they went to the Parents and asked if they could be come foster children too.

"Well of course you can" We love all our children the same. Was the parents response.

Then the legitimate children, said, "Well we don't look like they do, could you tell people that everyone should look like us."

"Well, of course we can. We want you all to be comforable with your appearance." Was the Parents response.

Next the real children began feeling a little self conscious of their height, so they asked their Parents not to put much emphasis on height.

The parents adopted a politically correct policy of, 'How tall do you want to be?'

Now the litgitimate children say, "We want to be 'Real Legitimate Children' sometimes, and 'Foster Children' sometimes, all at the same time. "Can we do that?"

I don't know what the Parents will say.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 18, 2012)

Does anyone know of any person that has a dual registered pony that goes to a AMHR/ASPC show and only shows Shetland?


----------



## Karen S (Oct 18, 2012)

Tina,

Mike and Lisa Strassle owns with Belinda "Harry". Harry's original owner, Larry and Debra Laramore bought him as a baby. He was shown many, many years as a Shetland only until he was old enough to be measured in as a miniature. He is now double registered and they still show him as a Shetland at shows and then at another will show him as a Miniature. He's been driven the past two years at mini nationals by both Lisa and Chelsea Vann. They still have to pick and choose "how" they are going to show now.

Something else....we have (2) Two Standard of Perfections here. Two different set of rules. You still have the razoring rule and a shoeing rule that affects this as well. You razor the heck out of your horse as a miniature but want to show as a Shetland, sorry can't do, but you have shoes on that pony. Now what are you going to do? BTW, this came up at the 1999 convention, I was there and it was nasty then when members were standing up shouting at each other then. It wasn't the Shetland people, but the Miniature folks that were complaining.

Yes, if this does pass, I also see some of these ponies being worked to death. I happens in my area and I see it in others as well.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 18, 2012)

The dual registration didn't take effect until he was hardshipped. So that is only 1 pony. But as you said they had to pick and choose what they wanted to show him as.

As to the rules, I don't razor my mini and he wins. I show some shetlands without plates at they win. God gave them talent not to need plates. So if I had a dual registered pony and abide by the razor/plate rule, I still see that I should have all rights to show.

My triple registered shetland that I leased out this year showed through all three divisions at Congress. He was fine. He was not overshown, nor was his health compromised even in the heat of Tulsa. But he had the right to show and he did.

As for the mini people being upset, they already are, the shetlands are already winning the AMHR Nationals, heck a shetland won AMHA World.

This proposal will not keep people from showing AMHR, but would allow them to also show ASPC which in turn will give us healthier competition in the shetland classes.


----------



## Karen S (Oct 18, 2012)

Tina,

It's not the Shetland folks, but those miniature folks who are wanting this that do own those double registerd. As far as I'm concern, bring them on. I look at it from a financial point for shows, bring the numbers up in the Shetland classes. I want the revenue for our club....but...I will tell you....when someone does an opps...razored their dual registered horse, has paid for those Shetland classes and then comes to a show manager and wants a refund....sorry charlie ain't happening. There are a lot more people out there sitting with buckets of water, razors and shaving cream between their legs going after their horses head in the miniature show field. No I don't razor, don't like it never have. I do just fine like you in the show ring without it, but you can't stop it. Same with shoes it's a piece to this puzzle. The AMHR rule states "No Shod horses on AMHR show grounds", you still have two different standard or perfections. As far as over use, again you and I understand the brilliance of a Shetland and what it takes to for them to give their very best in the show ring. How about those families who have two or three of these double registered guys, they show halter, they show, hunter, they show jumper, they show liberty, they show versatility, they show roadster, they show country pleasure driving.....as a miniature, then turn around and show hater, show hunter, show jumper, show liberty, show roadster, and show country pleasure driving as a Shetland. As I've stated...seen it happening here in our area (over showing a miniature) and know it happens in another area with current members. This will happen at the same show and now you have an over worked very tired pony that has lost it's brilliance. It's a bit different when we can show in a couple of classes and call it a day. Congress is a different story...we may show in one class each day keeping our ponies fresh. With our double registered ASPC...Classics & Moderns...that CAN cross enter...because they are from the same Shetland linage...where miniatures is just a height registery and they come from not only Shetlands, but harnessbreds (full size), quarter horses, arabs...etc. that where hardship years ago before the closing of the books to "outside" blood of unknown factor. Now in order to get in as a miniature they must hold Shetland papers, AMHA or Falabela papers...Falabela are appys, which cannot be in the Shetland blood lines.


----------



## Karen S (Oct 18, 2012)

Cross enter from ASPC to ASPR


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 18, 2012)

Karen, if they want to play, they have to follow the rules. If they ooops razor a face, you get DQ and forfeit your entries.

For those who want to overuse their horses, shame on them. Not sure what the answer would be. Perhaps every show should have a vet on call, if someone wants to protest that an animals is purely exhausted, they protest with a $XX fee, also pay the vet call. If sustained, animal has to be pulled from competition for rest of show and that owner pays the vet call. Now this is just a thought. But there are a few ponies that can go through multiple classes and handle it.

But back to my original thought, how many ponies will this affect. . . 1 - 10 - 100? The dual shetlands will typically show mini for better competition/points/fame.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 18, 2012)

Everytime you make it more advantageous to breed, own and show the doubles, you make it harder for me and others like me, to survive. Why would anyone want to buy a Straight Miniature Horse, when there are so many advantages to owning a double. Heck they are so great that you get to show them twice.

But times change. Maybe us little Foster Children have served our purpose. Maybe there are enough of the doubles to put on shows of their own.

It seems real dumb of me to support an event or an association that tells the public that I am less.


----------



## Karen S (Oct 18, 2012)

Renee what is your point? You always go off in another world when trying to relate to something? Help me here. Just use plain english...I know you love your "straight" miniatures as you call them, but give me your reasons why or why not. Not a story. Your breeding program has done great through the years and still is. Thanks.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 18, 2012)

Good Morning Karen. I don't know why I ramble on so. I guess I just like to ramble on.

My point is that I can no longer honestly give customers any reasons why they should buy a Straight Miniatre Horse when there are so many advantages to buying a double registered horse, and you can flop a Shetland or an AMHA horse in anytime for a hundred bucks.

Last year they told us that all you needed was a short Shetland and 100 bucks and you had a AMHR horse. They said, that all you needed was a AMHA horse and 100 bucks and you had an AMHR horse. That sure made me proud, after 25 years of trying to do everything right.

If you have noticed a couple of the larger AMHA farms are selling out. All of these say AMHR eligable. None of these bothered to double them.

Had we said, get these guys in, because as of 2013 it is going to be 1000.00 a horse, they would have come in. That would have made me proud. My horses papers were worth 1000 bucks. No one seems to place any monitary value to our Straight horses and yet they are the one set of papers that make the Shetland Pony more valuable.

I don't feel that our Association places any value on the Straight Miniatre Horse, other than the fee they bring for paperwork.

While I think it is great that those that love the Short Shetlands find as many ways to get them out there as they can. Why shoud I help provide a place to tell me that they are better and worthy of more. I wish that our Registery could give us something to hang on to.

Anything - throw me a bone. Please. We are dropping like flies up here.


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 18, 2012)

I'm with Crabtree farm, I like the points she brings up.

Now, how about this: is a show that offers both AMHA and AMHR classes the worst thing ever? Should that practice be stopped?


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 18, 2012)

If I remember correctly, dual ponies were able to show both and did for many years, it wasn't until (I believe the Nichols) were winning successfully in both divisions at a show that someone who was upset that they were winning called foul. Because they were tired of being beat, they tried to get rid of the competition.

So are you telling me that you rather show in a class where you get rid of the competiton? I doubt that because people make the decision to show AMHR.

Why not write the proposal to say, any AMHR registered pony that shows AMHR classes at a show be eligible to show shetland classes if they have shetland papers. Because you call them Dual Registered, they are first and formost a miniature by record due to size. It is a height registry.

But again how many ponies or rather "horses" will this allow? Does anyone have an answer?

And in this ecomony, horses/ponies are a luxury! Definitely a necessity if you base your livelyhood on it.

In AMHR is very much like ASPC, the "taller" ponies show/win better. Some people will not want to show their 38 and under shetlands against 42 inch ponies. They feel just like the 34-36 ponies lumped against the 38 inch ponies in some classes.

Again how many ponies will this affect? 1 - 10 - 100?


----------



## Yaddax3 (Oct 18, 2012)

Some folks will want to show both AMHR and ASPC at the same show. Some won't.

It's nice to have that option. And it will mean more money for shows struggling to break even.

Just because it's offered doesn't mean you have to do it.

It also might mean your ASPC horse will face competition instead going into the class alone -- like it is in many Shetland classes I've watched at local shows.

As for Renee's (LaVern) concern, she has a wonderful breeding program with championship-caliber horses and there always will be a market for that.


----------



## dreaminmini (Oct 18, 2012)

Well, in a conversation the other day, this came up..have we looked at the breed standard of perfection?? It is the standard for any well conformed HORSE and most of the double registered PONIES do not look like horses to me. They are very pretty but do they match a HORSE'S conformation?? As we all know there are very distinct differences between horses and ponies other than the obvious height as well as some shared ones. But in terms of judging....???

1.6 Standard of Perfection

A. General Impression: A small, sound, well-balanced

*horse* which gives the impression of strength, agility

and alertness.

A suggestion is to have AMHR-only shows. It has to show on your papers no ASPC registered ponies back so many generations or allow owners to have a special designation on their papers proving AMHR only lineage back so far.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 18, 2012)

You can't follow the rules about no shetland so many generations back. So many shetland papers were thrown away and still strong shetland blood is there in today's miniatures.


----------



## Karen S (Oct 18, 2012)

Thank you Renee for your explanation.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 18, 2012)

And who is to say the sire and dam are actually those listed. No dna to prove so. Until dna goes into effect, and you get that 4 generation proof, that can't happen.

I do have dna on all my animals to know who they are and who they came from.


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 18, 2012)

Not all who have dual registered horses/ponies will want to show in both. It would be expensive to campaign a horse or multiple horses in both for exhibitors. But the option should be there.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 18, 2012)

You want shetlands to actually come and show and fill up the shetland classes? Then make it to where the shetlands have to qualify for Congress too. Why should the miniatures qualify for Nationals and not the shetlands for their championship show? The miniatures are the money earner for the club, the miniatures support the shows, help support Congress that looses money every year in which AMHR can't show at, Why should we give a free ride for these dual shetlands? Make them show, if they want to show as a shetland they can, just not as a miniature. But for some reason they don't want to show as a shetland and show as a miniature instead, now why is that? Perhaps they can compete as a miniature because that is whats winning is the shetland influence and they can't compete against their bigger counter part.

I agree that I feel that the AMHR miniature keeps getting pushed out. Not only is it hard enough to compete at shows but allowing to cross enter some may say oh I can do double the classes and that includes double the points for All-Star and Hall of Fame. You loose interest in the AMHR miniature because what is the incentive. Yes we choose the AMHR miniature because that is what we prefer but is it worth continue too breed for the AMHR miniature? This is why I feel that adding a aged class won't do us any good and what we need is a type class.

I love to show, I show my geldings in pretty much everything performance, (obstacle, hunter, driving) and by the end of the day my horses are a trooper and we get it done but boy after that last class it's like a sigh of relief. I don't think I could be able to show them in all of those classes as a Shetland you would burn them out much faster and you won't see them in the show ring for very long. If mine were double I may possibly focus on a specific area say halter or driving but I'll save the rest for Congress.


----------



## mdegner (Oct 18, 2012)

Regarding DNA, good for you Crabtree!! We also have DNA on everything we own (everything is double-registered AMHR/AMHA) and I so wish AMHR/ASPC would begin a DNA program. But I digress from the main point of this thread......


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 18, 2012)

dreaminmini said:


> Well, in a conversation the other day, this came up..have we looked at the breed standard of perfection?? It is the standard for any well conformed HORSE and most of the double registered PONIES do not look like horses to me. They are very pretty but do they match a HORSE'S conformation?? As we all know there are very distinct differences between horses and ponies other than the obvious height as well as some shared ones. But in terms of judging....???
> 
> 1.6 Standard of Perfection
> 
> ...


Technically, all ponies are horses, but not all horses are ponies due to height. It's a Venn diagram where the pony circle falls inside the horse circle.

The American shetland is distinct in that it has been bred for a refined, more horselike appearance. The pony ish short dished head, short legs, round barrel, thick short neck are not necessarily the ideal. The horselike appearance and movement is what is drawing the popularity into the AMHR show ring.

When I tell non-horse people (and even most horse people) that I own a Shetland pony, I know most people picture a little Thellwell type pony in their minds, and not what is pictured in my avatar.


----------



## drmatthewtaylor (Oct 18, 2012)

This issue certainly has 2 sides and both have reasonable arguments.

Considering all of the arguments, I do not believe 'over showing' an animal is a reasonable argument. Many have used the phrase 'shown to death', I challenge anyone to demonstrate an occurrence of 'death by over-showing'. Now, I understand most people are using that phrase as an over exaggeration to make their point, but exaggerations tend to reduce the validity of an argument, not support it.

The obvious extension to the argument is the 'well maybe not to death, but some ponies are shown too much'. I would like someone to define 'too much' as to the detrimental effect on the animal. Again, I would challenge anyone to demonstrate an occurrence of 'injury due to over-showing'.

The last extension to the argument would be 'well showing in "x" number of classes per day is too much'. Any of us would defend an animal who was being beaten because it is too exhausted to continue. But, short of that, just because a pony gets tired after a number of classes doesn't mean it is being treated inhumanely.

The primary reason this is a concern to me is people who show one pony in many classes is far more likely to be an amateur who is showing for the fun of it. Now they read that others at the show think they are being inhumane? How likely do you think that amateur is to want to go to a show at all, when they know people are talking this way about them?

My secondary concern is people, like me, who bring a young pony and only pay once to show it in its open class are not the exhibitors that end up paying for the majority of a show. The people that pay the way for all of us 'one and doners' is the exhibitor that brings a pony that they show in many classes. I appreciate that they do and I hope they have fun.

Dr. Taylor


----------



## LaVern (Oct 18, 2012)

Thankyou Yaddax3, but I don't think that you are right. Unless I go elswhere or create a new outlet for my horses, I won't survive if we keep making AMHR more Shetland Pony friendly. My horses will never look or perform like the Modern Shetlands (I don't want them to.) and that is the direction that AMHR is going.

A few of us are trying to come up with ideas to promote different typs of shows more locally for both AMHR and AMHA Mature (no babies or young stock) Miniature Horses. Our state has so much money and they like to promote that they are giving back to Agriculture. Some thing like a Dakota Miniature Horse Association. Extremly tight measurements, health, but no coggins needed. Big prizes- Lots of publicity, Our own online mag for publictiy. Free classes - no stall fees. Are things we are hoping for.

Everything on line. Email a copy of your papers to enter. Use a combination of AMHR/AMHA rules. Non carded repected judges of all breeds. Some want no papered horse too. Maybe


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 18, 2012)

Yes, Dr. Taylor... And an "over shown" horse won't perform or place as well.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 18, 2012)

Many shetland people don't show shetland when they have the dual horses is as Bob noted, there sometimes one or none in the class, why bother showing to get a hollow victory, wait until Congress for competition.


----------



## dreaminmini (Oct 18, 2012)

You bring up some good points and I agree there would have to be some proof to the pudding. I would have no problem with having to DNA my horses.

I have done a lot of thinking about this debate. The miniature horse is extremely popular. It's entries far outweigh the Shetlands and the AMHR makes lots more money. Look at Congress as opposed to mini Nationals. There is a reason for that. People prefer the miniature horse, it has wider appeal. They make a great family horse or a horse for someone that can no longer handle the full size horse. Now in order for the Shetland breeders to stay successful they start mixing their Shetlands in with miniatures to make smaller Shetlands. Most judges are Shetland judges. So these double registered ponies start winning. Now they are all the rage. Everyone has to have one in their barn. But in this comes the problem. We are diluting the miniature horse and what they stand for. I see these double registered ponies, more highly strung, hotter come into the ring looking very beautiful. But is the general family person going to want to have one of these. Over the years they had shown their preference for the miniature horse.Are we going to spoil that now??? Yes most minis have Shetland breeding...agreed...but...they have also been carefully chosen and cultivated by dedicated breeders such as LaVern among others to create the miniature horse that everyone loves. Now we are on track to no longer have a miniature HORSE but just a smaller Shetland division. The other issue is that a lot of these double registered are sold with no height guarantees and there have been lots of people that buy these ponies only to have them go over, so then they put them in the barn for breeding so we can breed more double registered ponies that will go over. That is why measuring is such a joke these days. I watched classes at Nationals that blew my mind! 30" and under classes that most of the horses looked bigger than my 33 1/2" mare!!! A yearling colt we showed this year at the top of the measurement and he is the smallest in his class??? Others clearly larger...that is another problem that the double registered is perhaps exacerbating. I realize that there will always be measuring issues but I am talking about how clearly rampant it is becoming.


----------



## drmatthewtaylor (Oct 18, 2012)

Although this thread isn't about the discounted AMHR hardship fee, but others have commented, so I will add in my $0.02.

I disagree with the discounted fee. I do believe it helped to lower the value of minis. I think it also made members who paid the higher fee feel like they were taken advantage of.

Now what would be the reasonable rational to raise the fee? How will you feel if your pony couldn't be hard-shipped for the cheaper fee because he was only 2 yrs old, but 'Zeke down the road' got his hard-shipped for the cheaper because his was a year older?

I'm sure the change in fee structure was based on some reasonable rational, but in this case I don't think the positives out weighed the negative.

Dr. Taylor


----------



## sdmini (Oct 18, 2012)

Crabtree Farm said:


> Many shetland people don't show shetland when they have the dual horses is as Bob noted, there sometimes one or none in the class, why bother showing to get a hollow victory, wait until Congress for competition.


I have to respond to this. Our local fairs are struggling to justify keeping their AMHR shows. I go every year. I hear all the excuses not to go, I don't like fair shows, it's too close to Nationals, it's too expensive, the judges aren't very good, not enough compitition and so on. I agree with many of these things, except I like -the people at fair shows and it's one of the least expensive shows I go to all year. I go because it's the best venue to put our breed out on display for the general public. If I don't support those shows and they die will I be better off as a farm? If those shows die out, how can anyone have any other image in their head than a Thewell pony or some poor example of a mini they seen on TV. I guess if the shows die out I have a lot of pintos so I could start showing PtHA but is that garnering any intrest for the AMHR horse? No it's garnering intrest for any miniature horse that is of height and happens to have spots.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 18, 2012)

Thanks Doc Taylor, as I value your opinion. I know that this is a bit off topic too, but this was one of those things that happened without warning last year at Convention. It was quite a slap in the face to the Straight AMHR breeder. I think that it was good for only a year, and who know what will happen this year. I personally think that it should go back up to where it was for hard shipping the Shetlands, as we are all one outfit. But, as for the AMHA horses that want to be AMHR, I think that we should up it to exactly what they have been making us pay all these years. It seems only fair. If they didn't take advantage of it at 100.00, they have no right to grumble.

By the way, I dreamed that your Dad and Bruce showed up with a semi load of white faced sheep. It was the craziest thing. So real. Then Bruce told me that you guys do have sheep.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 18, 2012)

Crabtree Farm said:


> Many shetland people don't show shetland when they have the dual horses is as Bob noted, there sometimes one or none in the class, why bother showing to get a hollow victory, wait until Congress for competition.


Which is why I asked how come we have no qualifications for Congress for the shetlands? That would help fill up the classes.



dreaminmini said:


> You bring up some good points and I agree there would have to be some proof to the pudding. I would have no problem with having to DNA my horses.
> 
> I have done a lot of thinking about this debate. The miniature horse is extremely popular. It's entries far outweigh the Shetlands and the AMHR makes lots more money. Look at Congress as opposed to mini Nationals. There is a reason for that. People prefer the miniature horse, it has wider appeal. They make a great family horse or a horse for someone that can no longer handle the full size horse. Now in order for the Shetland breeders to stay successful they start mixing their Shetlands in with miniatures to make smaller Shetlands. Most judges are Shetland judges. So these double registered ponies start winning. Now they are all the rage. Everyone has to have one in their barn. But in this comes the problem. We are diluting the miniature horse and what they stand for. I see these double registered ponies, more highly strung, hotter come into the ring looking very beautiful. But is the general family person going to want to have one of these. Over the years they had shown their preference for the miniature horse.Are we going to spoil that now??? Yes most minis have Shetland breeding...agreed...but...they have also been carefully chosen and cultivated by dedicated breeders such as LaVern among others to create the miniature horse that everyone loves. Now we are on track to no longer have a miniature HORSE but just a smaller Shetland division. The other issue is that a lot of these double registered are sold with no height guarantees and there have been lots of people that buy these ponies only to have them go over, so then they put them in the barn for breeding so we can breed more double registered ponies that will go over. That is why measuring is such a joke these days. I watched classes at Nationals that blew my mind! 30" and under classes that most of the horses looked bigger than my 33 1/2" mare!!! A yearling colt we showed this year at the top of the measurement and he is the smallest in his class??? Others clearly larger...that is another problem that the double registered is perhaps exacerbating. I realize that there will always be measuring issues but I am talking about how clearly rampant it is becoming.


Which lies the problem and been said for years. Something needs to change and if we want to become serious we need to close the doors to hardshipping for all. AMHR is just a height registry, anything under 38" can come in as long as it has ASPC, AMHA, and Fabella papers. I compare AMHR a lot to a color registry, we have no serious standard of perfection, it just has to be a good horse with good conformation, well that can be all sorts of types. Close the doors, and create a serious SOP but I guarantee the standard will be just a smaller version of a classic.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 18, 2012)

AMHR

Standard of Perfection

A. General Impression: A small, sound, well-balanced

horse which gives the impression of strength, agility

and alertness. The disposition should be eager and

friendly, not skittish.

B. Size: The American Miniature Horse must measure

not more than 34 inches at the base of the last hair on

the mane for Under Division, and not more than 38

inches for Over Division. Since the breed objective

is the smallest possible perfect horse preference in

judging shall be given to the smallest, all other factors

being equal. In no case shall a smaller horse be placed

over a larger horse with better conformation.

Priority in judging shall be in this order:

1. Soundness

2. Balance and conformity to the standard of

perfection

3. Size

C. Head: In proportion to the body; neither excessively

long nor short. The eyes should be large, alert, and

prominent with no discrimination in color. The ears

open toward the front and carried erect. The teeth

Miniature Horse

Section XIII - American Miniature Horse Registry 4

should show no signs of parrot mouth or undershot

jaw.

D. Neck: Strong and muscular, proportionate to body and

the type of horse represented.

E. Body: Well-muscled with good bone and substance,

well sprung ribs, level topline, as nearly as possible of

equal height in withers and rump, fore and hind quarters

well angulated, so that the horse in movement

shows a smooth gait.

F. Legs: Straight, clean and sound.

G. Hooves: Round and compact, trimmed as short as

practical for an unshod horse, and in good condition.

H. Color: Any color, eye color and/or marking pattern are

equally acceptable.

I. Throat-Latch: Clean and well defined, allowing ample

flexion at the poll.

J. Shoulder: Long, sloping and well-angulated, allowing

a free swinging stride and alert head/neck carriage.

Well muscled forearm.

K. Hindquarters: Long, well-muscled hip, thigh and

gaskin. Highest point of croup to be same height as

withers. Tail-set neither excessively high nor low, but

smoothly rounding off rump.

L. Disqualifications: Height in excess of 34 inches for

Under Division and 38 inches for Over Division miniatures.

Dwarfism, unsoundness; or cryptorchidism

in aged stallions. Complete or partial loss of sight in

either eye will not be a disqualification if the loss of

sight results from traumatic injury. A licensed veterinarian

must verify the deltiology of the sight loss as

traumatic and such copy must accompany the horse’s

papers.

Miniature Horse 5 Section XIII -

American Miniature Horse Registry

M. Horse shall be shown with full mane and tail (no full

roach). Mane and tail length shall be left to the decision

and discretion of the exhibitor. Thinning, pulling,

shortening, etc., of a mane and tail is permissible.

Okay….

This is directed at dreaminmini, who earlier on posted that a Shetland (at least the small enough to be AMHR Shetlands) do not fit the miniature HORSE standard of perfection.  I am quite puzzled.

The ASPC/AMHR horses I have seen have very much fitted into the standard of perfection.  Many of them look exactly like the AMHR horses that do not have Shetland papers.  Some are more horse like than the majority of Miniatures.  As I see it, many Minis still look like the “ponies” of yesterday—if you grew them up into a 15.2 hh horse would they really look like a horse—or would their “pony” proportions be very obvious.  I would say the latter—you would be looking at a 15.2 hand pony rather than a horse.

Now—when you look at these two photos….












please tell me how these two do NOT fit into the standard of perfection above?  Obviously the second one doesn’t fit in by virtue of size…he is a 44” Shetland….but his type is most assuredly HORSE.  If he could be shrunk down to 37” he would fit the Mini horse standard perfectly.  How can anyone say that the American Shetlands do not look like HORSES?

The first horse pictured—the palomino pinto—is a Shetland Pony….but he fits within AMHR size.  When he is old enough…unless he has a major growth spurt…he will be able to hardship into AMHR.  How would he not fit the AMHR standard of perfection?  What is there about him that says “pony” rather than “horse”?  He is more horse proportioned than a good many Miniatures.  If I could grow him up to 15.2 he would truly look like a horse, not an oversized “pony”.   He would be a very nice Miniature Horse.  Will I show him AMHR? Quite possibly not.  As I said before, I like showing ponies…Minis, not so much.

Renee—in an earlier thread you yourself stated that once a Shetland gets his AMHR papers, in your view he becomes a Miniature Horse.  Remember that one?  Yet now when we are talking about ASPC/AMHR horses, you’re saying they are different.


----------



## drmatthewtaylor (Oct 18, 2012)

LaVern said:


> Thanks Doc Taylor, as I value your opinion. I know that this is a bit off topic too, but this was one of those things that happened without warning last year at Convention. It was quite a slap in the face to the Straight AMHR breeder. I think that it was good for only a year, and who know what will happen this year. I personally think that it should go back up to where it was for hard shipping the Shetlands, as we are all one outfit. But, as for the AMHA horses that want to be AMHR, I think that we should up it to exactly what they have been making us pay all these years. It seems only fair. If they didn't take advantage of it at 100.00, they have no right to grumble.
> 
> By the way, I dreamed that your Dad and Bruce showed up with a semi load of white faced sheep. It was the craziest thing. So real. Then Bruce told me that you guys do have sheep.


Thank you.

I actually just picked up a new ram last weekend, snow white from head to toe.

I for got on my last post, but I think the time has come to require qualifying for Congress. Not necessarily the exact same as Nationals (in large part because I do not know what that entails) and maybe with 'emeritus' status for some so they wouldn't have to abide by the rule. I'm thinking of a few older folks who have done a lot for the Club over the years and might only be able to make one show.

Dr. taylor


----------



## LaVern (Oct 18, 2012)

(Renee—in an earlier thread you yourself stated that once a Shetland gets his AMHR papers, in your view he becomes a Miniature Horse. Remember that one? Yet now when we are talking about ASPC/AMHR horses, you’re saying they are different.)

I never would coment on pictures others horses.

But Of course I remember that statement. That is exactly how I feel. If I were a miniature director I would go to bat for any miniature horse that carried it's AMHR papers. I would fight like heck to say it was the most wonderful horse in the world. I would brag to the world that they put all other equine to shame and there was no other horse or pony that was worthwhile owning. I would fight to the death to protect the AMHR from outside influences that would try to undermine it's value. I would reveal that I do not know much about other breeds and could care less. I don't care about the history of other breeds. I care only about the AMHR horse. I would shoot my mouth off and tell all that would listen that there is no other horse worth having. I would support any change that looked like it would be of benefit to the AMHR horse. I would vote against anything that might hurt the already registered AMHR horse. I would also abstain from voting on most of the stuff I don't know beans about which would be most of it.

Maybe I will run, and if there is anyone out there that feels as strongly about the AMHR miniature horse, I would throw them all my support, (that would be Swigg Hanson down the road he likes my cookies) - A Miniature Director that fights for the miniature horse and it's owners and its breeders.


----------



## dreaminmini (Oct 18, 2012)

Holly, in no way am I inferring that Shetland's cannot have good/great conformation and most of the Standard of Perfection of both ponies and Miniature horses are very similar with small differences as if you were to read the Standard of Perfection to the Quarter horse, Morgan, Thoroughbred and the Welsh pony. Are they all the same? They must all have basic good standard conformation, agreed, but there are differences. Throw them all in the ring together and who wins??? It all depends who is judging. And it isn't really done that often, is it?? wonder why that is?? Well conformed or not ponies do have a distinct look, some subtle some not so subtle. and yes I think your guys look like ponies, very beautiful ponies. I am assuming you want them to look like ponies and not horses as you have changed over from the miniature horses you previously had. You know I like your ponies, I think they are beautiful but they are ponies and even you make the distinction that you prefer them to your minis. To each his/her own, I prefer my miniatures.

Holly, if you are right and there is no difference in the Standard between the miniature horse and Shetland, I have an idea, why don't we just change the name totally. Because if what you say is totally right then we have no miniature horse. We have the Modern, the Classic, the Foundation and the Miniature Shetland. There is no room for what was once known as the Miniature horse, it will soon become extinct. This idea is a real money saver. Just one Congress/Nationals, Why differentiate? This whole issue of people allowed to show ASPC and AMHR at the same show will be a moot point. If you outgrow the miniature Shetland papers then you just jump to the Foundation, Classic or Modern division. Why didn't someone think of this before?? Or did they and we are heading that way??


----------



## chandab (Oct 18, 2012)

Yaddax3 said:


> As for Renee's (LaVern) concern, she has a wonderful breeding program with championship-caliber horses and there always will be a market for that.


You said it better than I could, so I'll just quote you. Love, love, love Renee's horses; have two in my herd and would like more (hubby says no more).


----------



## Flying minis (Oct 18, 2012)

drmatthewtaylor said:


> This issue certainly has 2 sides and both have reasonable arguments.
> 
> Considering all of the arguments, I do not believe 'over showing' an animal is a reasonable argument. Many have used the phrase 'shown to death', I challenge anyone to demonstrate an occurrence of 'death by over-showing'. Now, I understand most people are using that phrase as an over exaggeration to make their point, but exaggerations tend to reduce the validity of an argument, not support it.
> 
> ...


I'm one of those Amateurs who some people probably think "overshow" my horses. They drive, obstacle drive, do halter obstacle, hunter, and jumper, and showmanship. Are they tired at the end of the day? Sometimes. Are they "burned out" or "exhausted" or "abused" - hardly. . . why? Because I also have to PRACTICE all of those things at home - my horses WORK at least an hour a day 4-5 days a week. And I mean work - when they are in shape, they can click off 5 miles of road work in 30 minutes. Are they overworked? I don't think so - considering everyone of them freely comes to me to be caught and worked, I have to think they actually like their work. I don't need my horse to be "brilliant" for hunter or jumper or obstacle, and truthfully, most of the time at local shows, I don't need them to be "brilliant" - not like at Nationals. So maybe the overshow argument really doesn't hold water. . .


----------



## Riverrose28 (Oct 18, 2012)

dreaminmini said:


> Holly, in no way am I inferring that Shetland's cannot have good/great conformation and most of the Standard of Perfection of both ponies and Miniature horses are very similar with small differences as if you were to read the Standard of Perfection to the Quarter horse, Morgan, Thoroughbred and the Welsh pony. Are they all the same? They must all have basic good standard conformation, agreed, but there are differences. Throw them all in the ring together and who wins??? It all depends who is judging. And it isn't really done that often, is it?? wonder why that is?? Well conformed or not ponies do have a distinct look, some subtle some not so subtle. and yes I think your guys look like ponies, very beautiful ponies. I am assuming you want them to look like ponies and not horses as you have changed over from the miniature horses you previously had. You know I like your ponies, I think they are beautiful but they are ponies and even you make the distinction that you prefer them to your minis. To each his/her own, I prefer my miniatures.
> 
> Holly, if you are right and there is no difference in the Standard between the miniature horse and Shetland, I have an idea, why don't we just change the name totally. Because if what you say is totally right then we have no miniature horse. We have the Modern, the Classic, the Foundation and the Miniature Shetland. There is no room for what was once known as the Miniature horse, it will soon become extinct. This idea is a real money saver. Just one Congress/Nationals, Why differentiate? This whole issue of people allowed to show ASPC and AMHR at the same show will be a moot point. If you outgrow the miniature Shetland papers then you just jump to the Foundation, Classic or Modern division. Why didn't someone think of this before?? Or did they and we are heading that way??


You are correct! They are already becoming extinct, except in performance. As a straight up AMHR breeder try winning in halter at Nationals or selling just an AMHR reg. horse, it's nearly impossable. IMO They are being phased out! Yes you can still sell them at public auction or as a pet, but the ASPC/AMHR breeder doesn't want them, and that is what the judges are placing in halter. Yes I've won some at Nationals in the top ten, but try for a GRand and it's the ASCP/AMHR that is on top, and they get to go to Congress and Nationals. Even AMHA breeders are jumping on the band wagon, and if you look around you will see that some of the big name AMHA only farms are selling off and moving in this direction as well. Enough said. Lavern/Renne if you run for director hope you win, and wish you were in my area!


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 18, 2012)

Sdminis, I do support the state fairs, in fact I drove 14 hours to attend a state fair. Not to mention I spent 14 hour round trip to pick up another person and her pony to go show, then another 14 hours to take her home. This for a blue ribbon and to showcase my animals.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 18, 2012)

Yes, Kim, they are ponies, but we both know that.  If I told you that little Gold was AMHR registered and that’s it, then he’d be a mini.  He wouldn’t be a pony….but he would still look the same…and he would fit the AMHR standard of perfection perfectly.  Except for the fact that you know he has ASPC papers, he fits the AMHR standard of perfection perfectly now.   To be honest, there are many “ponies” that fit the standard of perfection.  Some fit the standard better than a lot of Minis—because there are a large number of minis out there that don’t fit the AMHR standard of perfection.  It’s true.

Sure, I make no secret of the fact that I like ponies better than minis….but if I could find a Mini that looks (and moves) exactly like Tim, or Reva, or Gold, or any of my others—then I would like Minis a lot better.   If these ponies were all minis then I wouldn’t care if I had ponies.  If these ponies of mine were all Minis, would I show them as Minis?  Probably not, or at least not in halter, I might show them in driving.  Why? I don’t like body clipping….I don’t like black and white pintos to be pink and grey pintos…and that’s a big reason why I won’t show AMHR.   I also don’t like the fact that AMHR doesn’t put any emphasis on movement in the line classes.  A few judges do still appreciate good movement—but many don’t bother with it because the judging requirements don’t tell them to.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Oct 18, 2012)

I have to say Holly that the Shetlands you have pictured here are not typical of the majority of Shetlands I am seeing placed at the AMHR shows. I wouldn't have quite so much objection if they were. What I have been seeing is the Shetlands placed best to worst over the Minis placed'best to worst and it is not because ALL the Shetlands are better conformed and meet the standards of perfection. You need to get out to a few more shows and see for yourself exactly what is going on. There aren't enough Shetlands showing as Minis in Manitoba for you to be able to form a true opinion. By the way I showed a horse in AMHR this year for the entire season without clipping him amd he did quite well so that is a poor excuse - there is nothing in the AMHR rules saying you must body clip.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 18, 2012)

I am fully aware that sometimes unclipped horses have a fair shot--but sometimes I do believe it depends on who is judging. In any case, I do not like how minis are shown, and make no bones about it--it isn't what I want to do.


----------



## dreaminmini (Oct 18, 2012)

I agree on the judging with you Holly. It definitely needs improvement and I wholeheartedly agree with form and function. Movement should definitely play a part in the judging. Body clipping, I can take or leave. I know some people go a little crazy and I too hate to see them all pink from being clipped to short and if at an outside show they can burn so easily. Feel sorry for those horses.

Holly, you like ponies, that is great. Just like some love Friesians or they love Gypsy Vanners or they love Thoroughbreds. That is a person's preference and there is nothing wrong with that. But they are what they are. For you to say "but if I could find a Mini that looks (and moves) exactly like Tim, or Reva, or Gold, or any of my others—then I would like Minis a lot better." It is like saying I love a good Thoroughred but I would love a Friesian too if it looked like a Thoroughbred. They are what they are and you like what you like and I like what I like.

The problem with the mini standard of perfection is that it is for a general horse the same as all the other horse breeds. Good conformation is good conformation. The Arabian has played a part in a lot of the breeding of many horse breeds but yet would you enter an Arabian in a Morgan show. They are both horses, the arabian generally fits the standard so why can't the Arabian also be registered as a Morgan and compete in Morgan shows??? The mini needs it's own more specific standard but that is not gonna happen in our lifetime. But if you agree to call a mini a horse and a Shetland a pony there are still differences even if they fit in the larger picture. And with the judges predisposed to place the Shetlands higher the mini horse is on it's way out and that is very sad.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 18, 2012)

No, it really is not like saying I would like a Friesen if it looked more like a Thoroughbred….it is a matter of conformation. (I happen to like both Friesens and Thoroughbreds and have no interest in having both breeds look the same! )  I like a horse with a good long hip….there are very few minis that have what I consider a good length of hip, combined with the hip angles I like…few that have the shoulder angulation (though that is less rare than the good length of hip) especially combined with a really well set on neck….and certainly rare for that neck to have a genuine proportionate length with an extremely clean throatlatch that can really set up in the bridle…with balance between front and rear.   And few Minis have the fluidity of movement that I like.  I don’t care what breed it is, I want a fluid movement and many of the minis just aren’t there yet.  Yes, some are very good moving but there is still a touch of ‘pony gaited’ in most of them—though that would surely disappear if they were truly horse-proportioned….horses in miniature.  People get too hung up on the name Miniature Horse.  It seems the mini has become their vision of a “horse” while a Shetland, since it is a pony, is their definition of “pony”; it is apparently impossible to recognize that an American Shetland may be more like a scaled down horse than is the Mini that it’s being compared to.   

When I make a determination of what looks most like a miniature horse, I think horse in miniature, meaning a small horse that grown up to full size would look like a horse and not an oversized pony—and I do think that many of the people who brag about their miniature Arabians would be quite appalled to see what their “perfect Arabians in miniature” looked like if they were 15.2 hh.  If it is a horse it should have the build and proportions of a horse, not just the name horse—it matters not which breed of horse it compares to, just so long as it is truly horse proportioned.  Some Minis are close, many are not so close.  Sadly I have heard owners of very dwarfy looking horses claim long and loud about how their Miniature is a horse because it has horse proportions—people truly do not recognize what is…or isn’t…in a name.  Yes, some Shetlands look very pony as in old fashioned pony….but others are very much ‘horse’.   I do see dual registered ponies who are indistinguishable from single registered Miniatures, and I have seen single registered Minis that could be taken for Shetlands, though not the more extreme sort of Shetland.   I simply cannot agree with anyone who says that Shetlands do not meet the standard of AMHR.

But, this is getting away from the original discussion I think.  My apologies.


----------



## Yaddax3 (Oct 18, 2012)

My experience could be different than yours, but ,,,

It is my experience that the people who howl the most about over-showing a horse are people who are losing to the "over-shown horse."

We have been accused of doing it, mostly by trainers who need to win to keep clients happy.

We have a few minis we've shown in a dozen or more classes. And we have quite a few minis we show in only a few classes.

We know which of our horses have the physical and mental makeup to handle a large number of classes, and we know which ones can't.

Maybe it's just me, but if a horse is winning his final classes at a show and appears to be getting stronger as the show goes on, he's not being over-shown. He's showcasing his talent and skill-set.

If this rule passes, we will show in mini and pony classes with horses equipped to handle it.

As for Dr. Taylor's suggestion of qualifying for Congress, I'm all for it. That said, it becomes even more important to allow double-registered ASPC-AMHR horses to be exhibited as minis and ponies in shows that offer both or many people could face the hardship of qualifying their horse(s) at AMHR and ASPC shows on different dates and locations.


----------



## mdegner (Oct 18, 2012)

Trying to be careful here not to offend our current director, I think she does a great job, but I would vote for you in a heartbeat. I share your concern and frustration and there are others who haven't consumed the Koolaid yet either. It's probably too late, seems the die is cast, but you never know.....


----------



## LaVern (Oct 18, 2012)

I guess if it passes it will be the final straw for me. I will keep raising my Straight Minis, but there is no use, doing the Futurity. Joe called last year to tell me that we were again the largest in entries. Can you imagine that? No more for me. Our horses have won the Supreme Futurity a couple times, but it isn't likely it will happen again.

I will keep registering a few Straight R Minis, not many. Just do it for my self and North Dakota people.

I wonder how long the mini owners will be willing to support the shows for the doubles to show in. I think they will be pretty much on their own soon.

I wonder how long they will be able to afford Tulsa to show the doubles on their own.

On the other hand if I were a director, I could change everything and turn this thing around. You see I can sling it with the best of them.


----------



## mdegner (Oct 18, 2012)

The next 2-4 years will be interesting. There will be no horses bred at our house until we see how this plays out.


----------



## dreaminmini (Oct 18, 2012)

We could band those who havent consumed the Koolaid  into our own registry. Though now I have written it maybe I might have been consuming my own special concoction. LOL


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 18, 2012)

Yaddax3 said:


> My experience could be different than yours, but ,,,
> 
> It is my experience that the people who howl the most about over-showing a horse are people who are losing to the "over-shown horse."
> 
> ...


I personally would vote in for this if it would allow qualification for Congress. Like Dr. Taylor I wouldn't hold the same standard qualification like you would for the miniatures. Just have one show qualifier. Doesn't even matter how many judges there are, just one show. The only reasons I see people have listed that they want to see this rule pass is because they want to see shetland classes fill up, to see competition, and they hope the dual horses will help with that. Well it may or it may not, but having to qualify for Congress will bring in those ponies. So unless it is rewritten at Convention I'm still not for it.

I also agree with you saying that over doing the ponies and showing them in so many classes is not a good argument. Who can say its over doing it with one horse and not the other. The owners know what the pony can and cannot do. Unless it gets really out of hand it's not a good argument against this ruling.

The one thing that really have to ask ourselves is how will this affect AMHR in the long run? I know some believe that this ruling will not affect AMHR at all but it does. If this ruling passes what's the incentive for AMHR only breeders to continue to breed for quality miniatures that aren't shetland breeding.


----------



## Lewella (Oct 18, 2012)

Thank you Mary.





Just a note for Renee - the AMHR bylaws are very specific on when a Director can abstain from a vote. There are very few times when a Director can abstain and if they do wish to abstain they have to disclose to the Board why they are abstaining and they must have a really, really good reason that the President and the rest of the Board accepts as a good reason.

As for qualifying for Congress - I can't support it unless more ASPC shows are available across the country. There are results recorded for 60 ASPC shows in 2012 vs. results recorded for 113 AMHR shows in 2012. If all those AMHR shows voluntarily added ASPC classes sure, I could support qualifying for Congress, but we can't force shows to add ASPC classes.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 18, 2012)

Perhaps their aren't more ASPC classes available is because the ponies don't come out to show because they don't have to qualify? If qualification for Congress comes into play ask the shows to put on classes for the ponies.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 18, 2012)

I had better put a halt to this, before I get crazier. Lewella you have nothing to fear from me. I couldn't direct traffic on a Sunday afternoon in Petersburg. I have a passion for the Miniature Horse and love a good yarn, thats all.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 18, 2012)

There are many clubs in my area that do not or will not offer shetland classes (and some are adament that they do not want shetlands). Last year alone two shows were cancelled and another show did not offer my division.


----------



## Lewella (Oct 18, 2012)

JMS - I doubt more than a handful of yearling and older ponies shown at Congress did not attend at least one ASPC show this year prior to Congress. Population wise there aren't the Shetlands population numbers that there are miniature population numbers. 1094 Shetlands registered last year. 5663 AMHR Miniatures registered last year. Close to 50% of the total number of new registerations in 2011 showed at the 2012 Congress. About 27% of the total number of new registrations in AMHR in 2011 showed at the 2012 Nationals. Those are amazing numbers - I doubt many breeds can boast that type of show support. It isn't like the Shetlands aren't out there supporting the shows, they just have a much smaller population to draw from.


----------



## drmatthewtaylor (Oct 18, 2012)

***As for qualifying for Congress - I can't support it unless more ASPC shows are available across the country. There are results recorded for 60 ASPC shows in 2012 vs. results recorded for 113 AMHR shows in 2012. If all those AMHR shows voluntarily added ASPC classes sure, I could support qualifying for Congress, but we can't force shows to add ASPC classes.***

I had the pleasure of delivering a mini to Prince Edward Island, Canada a couple of years ago. This kind lady had gone to Nationals and discussed what she did to qualify. Unfortunately, PEI did not have enough minis to support a show big enough to qualify, so she had to drive to the States. That's an over 8 hour trip every time to qualify for Nationals which is 36 hours and 2200 miles drive.

If that lady can do it without complaint, then I think most Shetland people can get it done. Maybe not exactly the same as minis, but some reasonable qualifying rules seem reasonable.

Dr. Taylor


----------



## LaVern (Oct 18, 2012)

I love going to shows that offer classes for the Shetlands. I like to watch and enjoy visiting with their owners. But I sure would not like it if they could show in both the Shetland Classes and the Mini Classes at the same show. I would stay away and not support those shows for sure. And how would you handle them not being seen by the judges ahead of time?

Doc did you mean that were 60 Shows that were just for Shetlands or 60 AMHR/ASPC joined shows?

The lady from PI is coming back this year, she says. She is very nice and loves her minis and can handle a 6 up draft. She said she was going to do chariot with her wolf hound along side, but I don't know if that will be allowed.


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 18, 2012)

We don't have any shetland shows... There wasn't even an area show over here. So how the heck would someone like me qualify my pony? My pony is sitting here, and although I'd like to offer money for the Registry, there is nothing here.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 18, 2012)

When there is a will there is always a way. Yell and scream if you have to. Sponsor the classes yourself. Start a show in your area for ASPC ponies. SMLEC shows which are centrally located offers a lot of the shetland classes and more then several classes have competition especially the Area 4 show this past year. But plenty of those classes are empty but yet they are still available. I know MHPBO offers a variety of shetland classes as well. Also other shows centrally located offers the shetland classes.


----------



## Lewella (Oct 19, 2012)

Renee those 60 shows were ASPC/AMHR. To the best of my knowledge there are no Shetland only shows currently anywhere in the country. Also, many of these 60 shows don't offer the Modern or Modern Pleasure divisions - they offer only Classic or Classic and Foundation.

JMS here in the middle of the country we can get Shetland classes added, usually not an issue, we have the Shetland attendance to support adding them. That isn't the case in much of the country. I know of several shows where people have volunteered time, sponsored classes, bent over backwards in an attempt to get Shetland classes added to no avail. Some clubs simply will not add them under any circumstances.

As Andrea mentioned Area 7 did not even have an Area National Show this year, not a single club applied to host. There were only one or two shows in all of Area 7 with Shetland classes and I don't believe any with Modern or Modern Pleasure classes. Area 1 is seriously lacking in Shetland shows as well.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 19, 2012)

My Gosh. I didn't know that about ASPC shows. That's terrible. I am going to have to study on this one.

The first thing that comes to mind though -is-

If the Shetland need AMHR to help put on a show for them and the AMHA (in our area anyway) need to join up with AMHR to put a show on, why is the AMHR horse only worth 100 bucks.

And why would some try to push for more from AMHR and make some of us mad.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 19, 2012)

Renee--I don't think you understand. It is not the Shetlabd people who are asking for this rule change. As I understand it, it is the AMHR exhibitors who are asking for this change so that they can also show their horses in the Shetland classes. (you might be surprised to learn who some of the people are who are pushing for this!!!)

It is not the Shetland owners asking so that they can also show AMHR!


----------



## LaVern (Oct 19, 2012)

I do understand where it is coming from. My best buddy (the rascal) was the one who brought this whole thing up. Both the dropping of the fees and the cross entering. Of course it is the double people who want this.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 19, 2012)

Again I have still not heard a good enough reason for this rule to pass. Of course this ruling is made by people who own double registered shetlands. It helps them even further in their breeding programs while its another stab to the side of the only AMHR breeder. Of course quality AMHR only miniatures will still sell but it will be harder and won't bring in as much money as it once was because again whats the incentive to own a Miniature that is only AMHR registered?

As far as having the 50% off sale for hardshipping it's been discussed here before and I was not against it. Membership numbers were dropping, registrations were dropping, so AMHR/ASPC offered several incentives to become a member of the club. We can't keep selling to ourselves anymore, we need new members and doing this hardship sell was to try and get new members, more so from AMHA. It has been reported that the sale was successful. Now with that being said I won't agree to continue it for next year. I would also consider doubling the hardship fees considering after next year AMHR will be the only miniature horse registry to still have limited hardshipping.


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 19, 2012)

People want options when breeding and showing and buying and selling.

When I first got into minis in 1999, the market was all about the AMHA/AMHR horse. Well, I liked them a little bigger than that for driving, and got an AMHR only horse. Back then, there were maybe one or two other b size horses in the classes. AMHR b size only was not profitable or popular. It was kind of "just for those who went over." It was hard to find ASPC/AMHR horses, but they've always been there because those Establo horses were always placing well in halter at Nationals.

Well, now there IS a big market for the "over" minis BECAUSE of the popularity of the ASPC/AMHR horses. There is actually horses filling the over classes. It's just now if the AMHA horse goes over it can show AMHR. And if the AMHR horse goes over it can show ASPC. People like this option of being double registered, whether AMHA or ASPC. This is why AMHR only or ASPC only horses are at a market disadvantage somewhat. It's hard finding shows that an ASPC only horse can show at, and that's why there is a bigger population of ASPC/AMHR showing.

But there are some of us who prefer ASPC only horses, just as there are those of us who prefer AMHR only horses. But that shouldn't make us want to restrict those looking to stick with what's driving the market right now, as those horses are still all registered with our small equine registry of choice.


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Oct 19, 2012)

See, I don't see any reason why they can't show both. It's not going to affect the AMHR classes at all- _most people are already showing their AMHR/ASPC horses as minis! _It may, however, add more entrants to the Shetland classes!

I have one AMHR/ASPC horse, my friend has three. Guess which classes we enter now with them? _It's not the Shetland division! _If I had the opportunity to show both at one show, would I do it? Probably at least once! Just to try it out.

I own five horses. One is AMHA/AMHR. One is AMHR/ASPC. One is AMHA/AMHR but so borderline I don't show her A. And two are _"straight" _AMHR.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 19, 2012)

I have a plan. What we need is more shows for the ASPC.

Here is how I have it figured.

If there was only 1000 or so Ponies registered last year that is only 20,000.

If we jacked the price up for AMHA (fairly) as to what they have charged us. We would only have to hardship 20 of them to come up with 24,000. What if we got 100 AMHA horses? That would be 120,000.

Okay, we take that money and give it to some Shetland Shows that offer all the classes they need. Not the area shows, maybe as so many don't like to go because of just one judge. But, give every area a big fancy ASPC show and then they should be happy. The could each get 20,000. Then they wouldn't need to cross enter.


----------



## horsefeather (Oct 20, 2012)

I dont think anyone has yet to think about the time line. If we had the shetlands cross-entering, do you know how long a show would last? Instead of 10-15 in a class, there could be 20-25 in that class, therefore the class would last longer. As it is, the miniatures have had to forfeit lots of classes just so the shetlands could have their classes. The more shetland classes added, the more mini classes are dropped because of time restraints. And, several shows now have had to add at least 1/2 day so they could fit in foundations, classic, modern, and on and on. People have tried to have shetland only shows, most had to cancel because of low support.

dreamlnmini, I loved your first post. What I have been trying to say for a long time! And Lavern, I LOVE you!! I am so glad there are folks like you still out there.

flying minis, also well said.

And, for those of you who think some of us 'overshow' our horses' if you would get your horses in shape, you wouldn't have that problem. I have heard MANY people say they won't work their horses if it's too hotl. I always wondered what happens to those horses when they go to Nationals, or any other show that is 100 plus. If they aren't used to it, I'd say they weren't in shape.

We certainly have been 'outpriced' in halter, but that;s ok with me. I got the journal just the other day and if I thought the shetlands/miniatures were eventually going to look like some in it, I'd just quit showing. I don't want to support an organization that is breeding for those horrible looking horses/ponies. It's already well known that hackney has 'creeped' into the shetlands/minis.. I just wish those that liked shetlands, hackneys, etc. would do their own shows and leave AMHR alone! It used to be fun showing, can't say that anymore.

As for the measuring that was mentioned, unfortunately, you can't measure as the rulebook states. Which is one of the reasons I won't pay to get my Stewards card for 2013. I got my card so people who were mad because their horse wasn't being measured per the rulebook would know I stuck to the book. Unfortunately, some of those same folks didn't like my measuring either. Sorry folks, i wouldn't make a 35" fit into a 34 and under class. I also found out that the rulebook wasn't for everyone. I am probably wrong, but to me when a rule is written, it is a rule. No exceptions, no excuses, period.

I'm sorry, didn't mean to hijack this topic, just got up there on my soapbox and was on a roll.

P.S. Actually, I like shetlands and really do own several.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Oct 20, 2012)

I really don't see why we should have to fund raise for the Shetlands LaVern




It seems to me that people who love and own Miniature Horses fundraise for themselves to put on shows to promote their horses, increase their popularity and give people interested in their breed somewhere to show and enjoy their horses. If people who own Shetlands did the same - held shows for their favourite breed to promote and increase interest in them - perhaps there would be more interest in them. Seems to me that with nowhere to exhibit and enjoy a Shetland, or at least apparently few and far between, there has been a loss of interest. Why should they expect to ride on the coattails of the Miniature Shows? Why should money raised from the Miniature aspect of the registry be used to promote the ponies when the people who own and enjoy them don't seem to want to arrange shows for themselves? They can't even be bothered to require any kind of qualification for their national show to encourage people in all areas to arrange shows for other Shetland owners so that they could qualify closer to home and at less expense. It only makes sense that if they don't want to go to the expense of having to attend a couple of shows to qualify there is going to be less interest in their breed because no one off their farms ever get to see them and what do you do with them if there is no where to compete with them? Minis not only have their own sanctioned breed shows but have gone into other venues to show such as carriage driving and 4H, and are also widely used as therapy and visitation animals. How many Shetlands are doing that? Few and far between. I think people are more comfortable with Minis because you don't necessarily have to resort to cruel practices to make them competitive in driving (although the introduction of the Shetlands back into the breed is sadly changing that) and their temperaments make them so much more user friendly. I have no problem with any horse that truly measures 38" and under, as our breed standard requires, competing in sanctioned Mini shows. I do have resentment towards Shetland breeders who promote their Shetlands as Miniatures when they are in fact oversize, taking advantage of new owners who thinking they have purchased a Mini or a young horse who will grow and mature to Mini size only to find out the horse they have is not a Mini at all causing them to resent and lose interest in our breed. I personally spoke to a long time Shetland breeder about a lovely colt they had advertised as being double registered and for sale. When I in quired about a height guarantee


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 20, 2012)

Horsefeathers, I am disgusted in you for considering to be horrible ponies/horses in the journal.

You are insulting my pony for being pictured in this Journal. She was not last years's GC halter, this year undefeated driving, maternal sister to GC Classic mare, but one the 3 top ponies that the judges, judging clinic panel and trainers were in awe over.

So think before you speak.

And there is no denying many moderns have hackney breeding or classics have welsh breeding. These are American shetlands, not British shetlands.


----------



## MiLo Minis (Oct 20, 2012)

Sorry - finishing my post here because I couldn't finish it on the above one..

The breeder told me that the horse was worth every bit as much as only a Shetland as it was as a Mini Shetland and they would not guarantee it's height. I was looking at it for breeding stock, thought I had made that clear to him, and I breed Minis so to me it was worth nothing as only a Shetland and I was not interested. If as he said it was worth every bit as much why had he gone to the trouble of double registering the horses that bred the colt?


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 20, 2012)

Correction to previous post. It should have said "she WAS last year's GC halter".


----------



## Minimor (Oct 20, 2012)

Horsefeather--it sounds like you must have a good turnout of Shetlands at your shows? A good turnout of small Shetlands who currently show as shetlands...if by allowing the double registered ones to show in both divisions it is going to swell AMHR numbers by 10+ horses per class.(or are you meaning that this will allow AMHR to show Shetland and therefore your Shetland classes will have 20 entries now?

It is unfortunate if some shows must leave out AMHR classes in order to add Shetlabd classes. That hasn't been the case here---we have kept all the same Amhr classes and still added ASPC classes. We don't have such a large AMHR turnout so show management is happy to have the ponies there to increase numbers. The other day someone on the show committee expressed delight that this new rule would make our pony classed bigger. I know some of the ponies currently showing R would not bother cross entering; there is another exhibitor who would cross enter I am sure.

I suspect that the horrible looking ponies you refer to are some of the moderns (I haven't got my Journal yet)--and you probably don't need to worry about those getting into R. Mostly they are too big. They really aren't my cup of tea at all, but then I do have to add that there are also some drop dead awful looking minis out there showing and even winning...and they are a few generations removed from "pony" now ...so really there are good ones and bad ones all across the board in ASPC and AMHR.

AGain I remind you that this proposal isn't a Shetland thing--those pushing for it are the people currently showing AMHR with their double registered ponies...if it doesn't pass I imagine they will continue showing AMHR. I'm not sure why people are so opposed--personally I don't care either way, I see good and bad in either. Now--if the proposal was to add a rule stating that in order to get an Amhr show sanctioned that show must include the Shetland divisions--then I could see why some of you would be upset.

As for as over showing a horse--it is nothing to do with whether or not my own horse can do 20 classes in a day--the point is I have seen horses that are overshown--horses who are overshown show after show. Horses who are fit--but still are worn out before the end of the show day. They are a very sad sight.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 20, 2012)

I made a big mistake. It is only 600 to hardship a mare into AMHA. It is 1200 for a stallion. Sorry. And I think that Holly is right. It seems that some of the people that are would want this cross over are sort of AMHA trainers and owners that really haven't spent years and years with AMHR.

Heres a thought. You get a lower rate if you have been a good standing member of the Club for along time.

I get so darn mad at that Dish TV. They are aways sending me good deals if I join up. I tell them that I have had Dish for many years and they say, "sorry no good deals for you."


----------



## LaVern (Oct 20, 2012)

Haven't had enough coffee yet. But, another thought. If those guys from Done Under can afford to pay 12,000 a horse to ship them down. They can afford more to hardship them in.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 20, 2012)

Off topic, but at what point will hardshipping slow down. AMHR/ASPC stallions bred to AMHR/ASPC mares will produce foals that can be registered AMHR/ASPC at birth.


----------



## Ashley (Oct 20, 2012)

I personally dont see an issue with cross entering. Over the years I have had mostly minis with an occasonal pony. I never showed the pony. Someday when and if I get back into showing it will be a double registured. I like the look of the pony, but dont feel there is much market for the "straight" pony.

Today I just have a couple pet minis but honestly I think the AMHR fees are crazy. I have a foal here that I probably wont reg as she is just a pet for my daughter. The filly wasnt a planned foal so the stud report and all that needs to be done. I dont have a problem paying that but I have no desire to be a member at this point and its a waist of money. The only way to do the paper work is to be a member. So in order to reg her it would be 110 plus then the transfer to get her in my daughters name. For a pet, that I have no plans to ever breed or show...........no thanks. I think it needs to go back to a slight higher fee for non members and regular hardship fees.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 20, 2012)

I don't think it wil slow down for along time. Maybe when all the Shetlands are all short, and even then some may get tall, but once they are in they are in, Their offspring will maybe stay short enough to show or we will get even easier on height or make a new catagory for them like the do in some countries.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 20, 2012)

We can't keep making categories for these animals to show in, just to guarantee someone gets a blue ribbon.

Now we are getting off topic again.

How many animals this affect? 1 - 10 - 100? As somone pointed out, only about 60 shows offers shetland classes.

So at the shows you attended this year, how many dual ponies showed at each show?

Now remember that many animals only have 1 AMHR/ASPC parent, thus not a dual registered pony.


----------



## Leeana (Oct 20, 2012)

Well as one of the few who raise "straight" (Yes LaVern, I am borrowing your term) ASPC shetland ponies that are generally over 38", I have to ask myself too how would this affect myself and others like me that raised just ASPC ponies and show just ASPC when I attend shows. I could see it going either way, it is just one of those things that you just do not know until it happens. If some of these mini people get a taste for the shetland show ring, maybe that would up the market (which in all honestly is not all that bad...) for these classic/foundation ponies (I am going to guess that is where most the minis would fall in those two categories. Could it harm "me" as a breeding of just ASPC reg ponies, well it could too...as if a miniature horse person was to want to show shetland, they just need an amhr/aspc pony vrs going and buying an ASPC classic or foundation not AMHR pony. But, such is the case right now too...so I don't believe that would change a lot. I geuss I would just have to further sit down and ask myself where I would fall. I usually try not to worry about anything unless it effects me directly (as I have enough to worry about LOL) but this one may actually affect me.

There is a market for anything if you market it correctly! As I have found very true this year. When i sold our miniature horse program (AMHR, AMHA/AMHR horses) about four years ago to pursue my dream of raising ASPC over 38" Classic and Foundation ponies I heard so many people tell me that I would never be able to sell them, there was no market, no money in them. Like I said, it is all in the marketing and promotion of what you are doing - and we did not do half bad this year with our first generation of ASPC only foals, 3 sold oversea's and 1 sold in the US to a wonderful show/breeding home for more than what I see most people are getting for their amhr/aspc ponies. Then agian....marketing, good ponies and more marketing. Plus maybe a little faith.

In all honesty.....I would be very surprised if this passed, so lets not start pricing off our breeding programs people.

I was brought up with some old value's, such as....if it ain't broke - don't fix it. What we have right now seems to be working. Although I realize that is not exactly how things progress or grow...


----------



## LaVern (Oct 20, 2012)

I was brought up with some old value's, such as....if it ain't broke - don't fix it. What we have right now seems to be working.

Love that Leeana.

Sometime some of us, (not me of course) get so carried away with out brilliant ideas, and now with the internet, spash them all over the place. And while it might sound like a great idea for the moment that is all it is, just a quick thought, that you thought was brilliant, but it really dumb after you thought it through. I hope the members at the Convention really give this some thought. I am sure they will. The hardship thing was pasted too fast last year, I thought.

This proposal was handled wisely, and tabled to Convention, giving us all time to shoot our mouths off. Thanks to Board.

And added-- And Thanks to Lil Beginnings for giving me the chance to voice my opinion.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 20, 2012)

MiLo Minis said:


> I really don't see why we should have to fund raise for the Shetlands LaVern
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well said





I so agree AMHR should not have to "fundraiser" to have to support ASPC shows so ASPC have a place to show. We already have to help financially when it comes to the Congress show cause I can't imagine the ASPC doesn't have $30,000 in their budget. The registry itself does not support the local shows the clubs do, and in order for the shows to survive we must support our local clubs. Shows are already struggling as it is. How much will this cost the shows to put on the extra classes if no one comes to support them? I'm only using the SMLEC shows as an example because that is the club I show with and our shows have all sorts of shetland classes but many of them our empty with occasionally a few shetlands in them. Our shows have almost 100 to over 100 miniatures and the many of the miniature classes are full, especially the performance classes. SMLEC offers a variety of classes for the youth and amateur exhibitor. The shows can run late in the night. A couple of times I didn't get to bed til after midnight. I can also see the show extend to another day and will the show be profitable even tho they have extra "ponies" showing even tho they have to pay the judges an extra day to judge? What classes can they cut considering there is competition in many of the miniature classes including the draft classes and I'm sure many would be disgusted if we have to make room for classes for the double registered shetlands when those who don't show shetlands especially if classes start to get cutted or have to have an extra day and many won't be able to get off an extra day of work.

I have thought about the ASPC ponies themselves that are not AMHR and wondered how those people felt about all the AMHR/ASPC ponies and them showing at Congress but it got me to thinking I don't see how it could hurt. The ASPC breed itself isn't as popular as the miniatures themselves. The double registered ponies can only help gain interest in the ASPC breed and can help and support the breed. Also the different ponies of the ASPC have standards, I don't see how the double registered ponies change the standard of the foundation or a classic or especially a modern. Altho I don't believe many of the foundation sealed double registered shetlands are the true foundation type and still show in the foundation classes because of the height. However they need to offer height division classes for these double registered shetlands which I know have already started in the classics.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 20, 2012)

I actually wish someone who currently runs and manage AMHR/ASPC shows would come on here and voice their opinions about how this ruling would affect the shows. We need to support the shows, if this will help tremendously for local clubs then perhaps it should pass. I still think that it could affect AMHR long term tho as a business stand point to many AMHR only breeders.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 20, 2012)

To answer Jamie's last post first--I do organize an ASPC/AMHR show and I do believe this rule change would help our bottom line some. I have already said that one of the people who organize our province's other ASPC AMHR show has expressed delight that this change would bring more revenue to our show. Some of the exhibitors won't show both ways, some will. So far we have no one showing a double registered horse as a pony, all are shown as minis.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 20, 2012)

Actually, they don't need to offer height classes for the smaller ponies--unlike minis ponies are judged on movement and so a small pony with good movement has every chance of winning--there have been a number of congress champions that were AMHR registered. They did add the smaller size class for senior ponies, as a way of attracting those exhibitors who believe you need more height divisions...but I doubt they will be adding more classes for smaller ponies.

Leeana--I think that it wasn't broke when they "fixed" it and put the prohibition in the 1990's either.  The catalyst for the rule was a little gray mare from Ohio who was actively showing as a Classic and a Miniature at the same shows and winning as both!  People apparently thought ponies would just show as ponies if they couldn't also show as miniatures at the same show.  Only that isn't what happened was it?  The ponies kept right on showing AMHR and no longer showed ASPC.  

As far as Shetland shows and establishing Shetland only shows the population concentration in the US of Shetlands isn't such that more than a handful of states have a large enough pony population within a day's drive for a stand alone Shetland show to even be possible.  Another thing, AMHR requires many more classes than any of the Shetland divisions. 

Required Classes to Host an AMHR Show:

- A Rated: 86 Classses

- Performance Only: 12 Classes

Required Classes to Host a Classic Show:

- A Rated: 39 Classes

- B Rated: 28 Classes

- C Rated: 14 Classes

(Foundation does not have a stand alone rating - Foundation classes are optional Classes for a Classic show)

Required Classes to Host a Modern Pleasure Show:

- A Rated: 32 Classes

Required Classes to Host a Modern Show:

- AAA Rated: 45 Classes

- AA Rated: 40 Classes

- A Rated: 27 Classes

- OA Rated: 17 Classes plus $250 in prize money

- B Rated: 21 Classes

- C Rated: 4 Classes


----------



## LaVern (Oct 20, 2012)

Maybe, the first year or so, but what down the line if the Straight Miniatures owners stopped coming and supporting such shows? Just a maybe.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 20, 2012)

Why would they? Nothing will change for them--not at the shows here, not at most of the shows anywhere. If AMHR exhibitors choose to boycott 60 shows (I think that was the number?) some year they aren't going to have many left to pick from. Some people would then have to drive a very long way to show.

Boycotts generally don't work well--people stay home and then discover that others went and do the show went on just fine without those who boycotted it.

It is kind of like someone saying they will boycott the registry by not registered their foals. Pretty soon they are back to doing their registrations.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 20, 2012)

I think the numbers tell us that alot of us are not registering foals. I can't speak for anyone else, but I guess I would tell my trainers. No shows where both were offerred. Maybe I would not have any shows to go to, but what the heck that would save me some money and as a breeder the registry tells me that, even the ones I register are only worth a 100 a piece.


----------



## ohmt (Oct 20, 2012)

What a great thread with lots of great points and for the most part I think the most civility I have seen on a thread this size
 


Personally, I kind of like the idea, though I really understand where those who don't are coming from. The horses with both papers are already showing AMHR. People want the shetlands to start pulling their own weight and I think this might be a good start to get more show participation. It seems the majority of those double reg horses are showing AMHR no matter what. I have a feeling those that are only showing shetland (which I bet are few) will keep doing so even with the change. Is there a way to do a type of trial period to see if it will affect AMHR?

Lavern-I agree with you on some of your points. I wish AMHR would really increase the cost of registering foals and their hardshipping prices should be the same as AMHA's.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 20, 2012)

That is really too bad you feel that way, that your horses are worth so little. Are you selling quite a few for that $100 price then, if that is all they are worth?

My AMHR horses are worth much more than that. Shoot, even my single registered ASPC ponies, which so many on this thread are saying are worth nothing, are worth a lot more than $100. a horse is surely valued by more than the cost of its registration papers!!!


----------



## LaVern (Oct 20, 2012)

Oh, that was good one Minimor, Lets see now, I need a comeback. hummmmm okay here goes.

I feel that my horses are worth a fortune, but the registry thinks they are only worth 100. No, I have not sold many at 100.00, I have given lots of them away though.


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 20, 2012)

I think what a lot of people are misunderstanding:

Just because a horse can cross enter AMHR to ASPC at a show, DOES NOT mean that a show HAS TO offer ASPC classes.

There can still be "just" AMHR only shows. So, shows won't have to hold and pay for ASPC classes!!!

It's just that if they DO the horses can cross enter.


----------



## Sandee (Oct 20, 2012)

Just a few thoughts. First the double shows: If you show your mini (reg.) horse in jumping and turn around and show him again in sheltand, will he do as good? Some will some will get tired but then that's got to be the choice of the owner/entrant. By holding them together, at least on the same weekend, your club should be able to save travel for judges and if they'd be so kind as to double up on rooms, save on hotels too. Now, however, as to showing costs. Bob, as I am, is used to shows that one fee will get you the whole weekend of events. IF we go to double shows, to make more money for the clubs there should be seperate fees for showing AMHR and ASPC. In other words, at least, double the cost for participants. However, they would also save on not having to travel to a seperate show on a different weekend.

So far it's sounding like a win, win. Shows can be run so that the double reg. that jumps in wins in one class has to do the double class soon after or right after making it a slight disadvantage to show double. That would be if someone is concerned about one person winning it all! In fact showing a mini class and then the shetland class next, or vice versa, is a good idea so that the trainers don't end up getting the same horse ready twice.

Those that are breeders that think this hurts them. I'm sorry. Are you actually telling us that you got into breeding to make money? Admit it you don't make a huge bundle. You're in this business because you like the ponies/horses. If you make money it's a positive thing but not the driving factor. I really like the look of the miniatures and definitely like their personality better than most horses. However, I have to admit that while I find my "pony" ugly, he is certainly entertaining to watch how he plays (my minis don't). He's also quite a picture when he drives and most minis aren't. He looks terrific under saddle and I have growing grandkids.

There's a need for both mini and shetland and we need to find a way to work together. As the old addage says, "We're stronger together!".


----------



## LaVern (Oct 20, 2012)

I think the rules say the judge can't see a horse before a AMHR show, so how would that work? I know that is why the AMHA shows have to be after AMHR. Something like that. So wouldn't you have to get two sets of judges. Maybe I have that wrong.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 20, 2012)

A judge may not visit the horses' stall area, witness the measuring of animals, inspect, or discuss any horse entered in the show before the judging, nor shall a judge review the show program until after the judging has been completed.


----------



## Karen S (Oct 20, 2012)

Ok guys where are you getting double the fee's at a show? That's the most ridiculas thing I've heard/read so far. Our club, the ASPC/AMHR Club of N. Texas, the oldest club in Area V has been hosting ASPC/AMHR shows for almost 20 years. We DO NOT charge seperate fees if you only show as a Miniature or Shetland. Some of you that have NEVER been to a well run ASPC/AMHR show need to come to one of ours. You can go look at our class list....www.aspcamhrntexas.com and see what we charge and how our class list is set up. A few years back we purposely timed each and every class to see where the down time was and where we needed to move classes around. We have been using this same show schedule going on five years now. It works! If you don't have a Shetland/Miniature show in your area, then come on down. I have personally driven as much as 14 hours to a show for a weekend. Don't be afraid to step outside your backyard, Go see what is out there. Tracey Slagle this year put on a very nice Shetland/Miniature show in August at the Lancaster County Event Center....for the first show in that area the turnout was nice...next year it will be in May. If you really want something, ask for a show manager to come to your area to put on a show. You might be suprised.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 20, 2012)

Karen I think they were talking about getting extra fees if a AMHR/ASPC pony shows both AMHR and ASPC. One horse for the price of 2 per say if the owner decides to show that horse as a miniature and as a shetland at the same show.


----------



## Karen S (Oct 20, 2012)

Jamie,

In answer to your question....it's not going to amount to a whole lot. (using our clubs show bill)

Example: Lets say a ASPC/AMHR Gelding that would show as a Foundation in the ASPC

Stall fee stays the same for one horse....$50.00

Office fee stay the same for one horse...$10.00

Miniature Gelding 38":

Open Halter..........$25.00

Amateur Halter....$15.00

Youth Halter: 13-17, 8-12, 7 & Younger....$30.00 for the three age divisions

Open Obstacle....$25.00

Amateur Obstacle...$15.00

Youth: 13-17, 8-12 & & & Younger (yes have been used for all three kids)...$30.00

Open Roadster...$25.00

Amateur Roadster...$15.00

Youth Roadster..$10.00

Liberty...$25.00

Costume...$25.00

Total as a Miniature: $300.00

Shetland:

Foundation Gelding Halter

Open.....$25.00

Amateur.....$ 15.00

Youth...13-17, 8-12, 7 & Younger....$30.00

Classic Obstacle (because there is no Foundation Obstacle)

Open...$25.00

Amateur...$15.00

Youth..13-17, 8-12, 7 & Younger....$30.00

Open Roadser....$25.00

Amateur Roadster...$15.00

Youth Roadster....$10.00

ASPC Liberty...$25.00

ASPC Costume...$25.00

Total for Shetland: $240.00

Grand Total would be $540 for one dual registered if was able to show across the lines.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 20, 2012)

Thank you Karen. I would also think you would have to charge an extra office fee as a shetland as well because you are dealing with 2 sets of different paperwork. Almost dealing with a completely different horse. The only thing you wouldn't get would be the extra stall fee.

Now with this ruling would you have to get a different judge just for the shetlands since this is quoted from the rule book:

_"__A judge may not visit the horses' stall area, witness the measuring of animals, inspect, or discuss any horse entered in the show before the judging, nor shall a judge review the show program until after the judging has been completed."_

Or would this new rule just replace it or is this statement not even talking about the actual judging of an animal? Cause to me the word "inspect" means to judge or examine.


----------



## Sandee (Oct 20, 2012)

If you read it the way you have it stated, then a horse that has been judged in, say halter, could not show in jumping because the judge has "already seen him". So I don't think the rule means that he couldn't have seen the horse in a class before in the same show. Regardless of whether it was a R or ASPC class.


----------



## fastrack (Oct 20, 2012)

I'm a late comer to this thread. Just have to say, I think the best post is 'LaVern's' family comparison....LOVED IT! 

And it best sums up the whole situation.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 20, 2012)

I read it the same was as Sandee--the rule uses two different words : inspect and judging. Inspect would be an inspection for hardship measuring perhaps? Or perhaps going through the barn looking at all the horses there? He cannot inspect them before judging starts but once he is judging the classes then obviously he can see the same horse in multiple classes.


----------



## Karen S (Oct 20, 2012)

Jamie,

When we hire judges, they all have their ASPC-C & M and AMHR card. We hire two judges, the Moderns can only have 2 judges. When you go to a multi judge show, the AMHR, Classic, Foundation and Modern Pleasure are the only divisions to which can have more than 2 judges. The Moderns and Show ponies are only allowed two judges.

This isn't hard....and no, you don't charge two office fee's for the same horse. Some clubs might but that's their choice. Paperwork will require two sets of back numbers....speaking of back numbers.....if you go to a show and have been issued your two different back numbers...one as a miniature and one as a Shetland....you walk into that Shetland class with your miniature number...you will be DQ by the office. The show manager can't do that as she has to follow what is on that judges card. Already seen it this year with folks who show a Modern that is also a Show Pony...issued their two different back numbers, went into their Show Pony class with their Modern back number and was DQ by the office.

People will have to pay attention to what they are doing as they could pentalize themselves.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 20, 2012)

That is true.

Well that is the only rule I can find in the rule book that is closest to anything about not allowing judges to see animals before hand. Heck I can't even find the cross-enter ruling in the rule book as it is.


----------



## Lewella (Oct 20, 2012)

Karen a horse showing in both registries would need two different back numbers so most shows would charge two office fees (as they do for ponies showing both ASPC and ASPR).

JMS I think the word "inspect" is in reference to inspection for hardship.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 20, 2012)

Lewella said:


> Karen a horse showing in both registries would need two different back numbers so most shows would charge two office fees (as they do for ponies showing both ASPC and ASPR).
> 
> JMS I think the word "inspect" is in reference to inspection for hardship.


Got ya.


----------



## dreaminmini (Oct 20, 2012)

Karen S said:


> Jamie,
> 
> In answer to your question....it's not going to amount to a whole lot. (using our clubs show bill)
> 
> ...


As a person showing on a budget, and I doubt I am the only one, the money is just not there to double my classes. If anything, if I were to try some Shetland classes I would either be cutting some AMHR classes to do it or going to less shows. I wonder how many more would be doing the same. Because where I show most of our shows are pay per class not a flat fee.

I realize the Shetland people want increased numbers but would they even get them. How many people have bought ASPC/AMHR horses only to be able to win because they are the current trend and that is what is winning. Do they have any intention on stepping into the pony ring?? Maybe someone should be polling the intentions of those owning double registered. As well if they will enter pony classes will they be competing in less AMHR classes because then we are looking at something detrimenral to the AMHR bottom line.

As well, the above example, in my opinion, is way too many classes for one poor horse to compete in. I realize it is just an example but one I am hoping doesnt get followed for the horses sake.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 20, 2012)

Really? You (and that is a rather generalized 'you') complain when the ponies show AMHR and then worry that they might drop out of some AMHR classes to show as ponies? LOL

Since the owners of the dual registered horses are the ones pushing for this they must have intentions of showing in both if they are allowed to--I do know that there are some very avid show people asking for this and they are able to afford it I would rather imagine


----------



## dreaminmini (Oct 20, 2012)

Not complaining Holly. Just voicing another part of the scenario. Something for people to think about.

Most I know can't afford to double their entries and most only want to show mini anyway, they only bought them because that is the trend. I like to know the numbers pushing for this, who the driving force is, I am guessing the majority are from the Shetland camps.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 20, 2012)

What is the Shetland camp? It is the AMHR exhibitors, the ones who want more things to show in. It isn't the ones showing Shetland now if that is what you mean!


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 20, 2012)

I would venture to guess that a show charging a flat entry fee would charge two for a double registered horse. The registration number and often even the name of the horse is different, so a show manager wouldn't even know without looking at birthdate/sire/dam that it was one horse. And, as pointed out, two back numbers are issued.

My pony is ASPC/aspr and I show him in both divisions when I show. I pay two office fees as he is on separate entries in each division as I have to enter his two different numbers and two different names.


----------



## dreaminmini (Oct 20, 2012)

It is far more beneficial to the ASPC than to the AMHR. The ASPC needs more entrants and more $$$$. Most on this thread talk about needing increased entries and more money for the ASPC. I haven't heard much at all from people owning these double registered horses coming on this thread saying "yes we want this and I can't wait to show Shetland and Mini at the same show, we are prepared to spend extra $$$" If they so avidly want it where are their voices? Surely at least some must belong to this forum.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 20, 2012)

Believe what you want Kim but it is not the big bad much detested Shetland camp that wants it. I know some of

The people pushing for it and no, many if them do not post on the forum. Hard to believe perhaps but there are many who do not post on here!


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 20, 2012)

I agree Minimor, I have yet to see this topic brought up on the shetland forum.

As for me, I would have only one (1) dual registered pony that I would show both of given the chance.

Can we get a head count of those owning dual registered ponies and how many on your showstring you would show in both divisions if given the chance.

So right now the count starts at one.


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 20, 2012)

I have owned a few AMHR/ASPC horses and would definitely have shown in both!!!


----------



## LaVern (Oct 20, 2012)

Right you are Minimor. You don't get many "Heavys" on the Forum, and oh, how they do make fun of us that are. Most run like the wind when they see me coming or pretend they don't see me.


----------



## minimomNC (Oct 20, 2012)

I have no problem showing AMHA/ AMHR horses in both on the same weekend, I sure don't have a problem being able to show my AMHR/ASPC horses in both on the same weekend.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 20, 2012)

Topics like these is good for discussion but at the same time it's like beating a dead horse. It's not going to change peoples minds, just like political arguments. You can keep talking but you won't get me to change my mind. It'll be interesting to hear these discussions at Convention and even more so how it will go down in the votes. Many people in the past have voiced their opinions against the dual shetlands but I think many have given up and moved on, sell out, or just plain get into the craze. For me I've accepted it. I don't even despise the shetlands showing in AMHR. I think they have brought something new to the registry that was needed. But at the same time we cannot forget the breeders who continue to breed for quality AMHR only miniatures because they are not into the shetlands.

IMO we give too much emphasis on height. Not saying do away with the Under and Over division. In driving we offer different driving divisions. In 2007 the Western Country Pleasure Driving class was introduced because those horses were being pushed out of Country Pleasure, they had no place to go. There was mixed feelings about this class. Now this class is as big as the Country Pleasure class. If we can do that then why can we not do the same for halter and those that don't have the shetland influence or as extreme have a place to go. Like it has been said in the Standard is so vague all you need is a good horse. AMHR has all types of horses. Instead of just be known for as a height registry lets start having type division halter classes and start getting serious. Lets do away with the height divisions, that way we can hear people stop saying "oh this horse was so much bigger it didn't belong in this class", etc...

Stock/Hunter

Pleasure/Saddle

Draft

The Draft type halter classes were already introduced for the first time at Nationals this year and had 14 exhibitors combined, which IMO was great considering it was short notice and you had to drive in a draft driving class. I say to not make it mandatory that you have to drive in a draft driving class other wise you are limiting your entries, plus I would like to see junior classes for the draft division. Still have divided by Under and Over. Also people want to have movement as part of the judging for halter classes well having type halter classes would help achieve that. And you will not be adding more classes then we currently have now if we take away those height divisions. This way not only is there a place for the Shetlands to continue to show but also for those who cannot compete with the Shetlands in halter. I still think many do not care for the look of the Shetlands that win in todays AMHR halter classes so lets give a clear winner on the type they prefer to breed for. In our club AMHR is the money earner of the family and you have to keep the members of AMHR happy and we can all work together for ideas to keep this organization big and strong.


----------



## Jacki (Oct 20, 2012)

JMS Miniatures said:


> I actually wish someone who currently runs and manage AMHR/ASPC shows would come on here and voice their opinions about how this ruling would affect the shows. We need to support the shows, if this will help tremendously for local clubs then perhaps it should pass. I still think that it could affect AMHR long term tho as a business stand point to many AMHR only breeders.


I'm the Secretary/Treasurer for an AMHR/AMHA club, we put on 3 shows a year and some offer ASPC classes, some AMHR and some AMHA so we have an interest in all 3 major small equine clubs. This rule change would have very little impact on our club, we would continue to offer the classes our members want, some of our shows might have ASPC classes but some still won't as there is nothing in the current rule or this proposed rule that would force a club to offer any division they do not want to.

We would charge an entry fee for every horse/pony so if your AMHR/ASPC horse pays our $40.00 unlimited fee and shows in AMHR classes that would be your total but if you also wanted to show it in ASPC classes you would owe an additional $40.00 unlimited fee to show in those classes. We do not charge office fees so I have no comment on if a show would charge 1 or 2 of those.

Although I don't support this proposed rule change for many reasons, my feelings about the club's treatment of AMHR only horses are in line with LaVern's, I also don't think it would have much impact on our shows. It is being promoted as a way to increase ASPC entries which are small in comparison to AMHR entries, will they increase because of this rule? I'm not sure. I am sure that it is another move that has the potential to alienate some AMHR breeders and exhibitors in an attempt to prop up ASPC entries. This is not a risk I'd be willing to take to increase ASPC entries by the few I expect to take advantage of this at most shows..

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## Sandee (Oct 20, 2012)

I'm one of those terrible people who own a double reg. ASPC/AMHR. The rest of my string is AMHR/AMHA double reg. Oh, wait triple reg. counting Pinto. I don't show AMHA because there are no shows up here in the frozen north (Wisconsin). I quit Pinto because they got too expensive.

At present I have to travel to two shows in different places to show my ASPC and then to another to show him AMHR. At the first show I can't take any other horses because they're not Shetland. And the way it is now if we go to a show with both types showing I have to decide which way to show him. Well, most often he gets shown AMHR since the Nationals has to be qualified for. Then he only shows Shetland a couple of times before Congress.

It's not going to make a BIG difference to me which way the vote goes but I, personally, would like to be able to show him under both papers at the same show. Save me travel time and trainer fees and stall fees just to name a few.


----------



## dreaminmini (Oct 20, 2012)

Minimor said:


> Believe what you want Kim but it is not the big bad much detested Shetland camp that wants it. I know some of
> 
> The people pushing for it and no, many if them do not post on the forum. Hard to believe perhaps but there are many who do not post on here!


I DO NOT detest Shetlands, first of all. How many times have I admired yours??? I may not necessarily like Shetlands in the AMHR but I can admire them as a breed. But that does not mean I want to own and show Shetland just as I love draft horses I don't want to own one. I love minis and I want them to continue as such.

Yes Holly I can believe what I want just the same as you can. The vote will go the way the vote will go. But who stands to gain the most from this rule change???


----------



## Minimor (Oct 21, 2012)

The people currently showing AMHR who will then also get to show their horses as Shetlands. That is who will gain the most.


----------



## dreaminmini (Oct 21, 2012)

True.

Then the ASPC for increased entries. Should be interesting to see how the competition shakes down. LOL Do I hear a new division in the offing? LOL

Won't matter to me, I am pretty much done with AMHR. The experiences from this show year have left a bitter taste. I am going to just enjoy my horses and pursue activities I can enjoy with them.

Holly, I would like to think we are still friends, as none of this is personal and I would rather just agree to disagree on our opinions. We each are passionate about our breeds.


----------



## horsefeather (Oct 21, 2012)

Crabtree Farm,

I don't believe I know you or your animals. Some of the horses/ponies/miniatures in the Journal were indeed 'horrible' I looked thru the Journal and was saddened by some of the participants. However, I didn't look to see who had what horse and/or what it had won. Sorry if I offened you, but you know the old saying, 'if the shoe fits....'

Also, there is someone registered as Horsefeathers, using the H as a capital letter. I am just plain 'horsefeather'.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 21, 2012)

Actually--second in line for who gains would be the local shows, who will see some increased revenue if this cross entry is allowed.

It matters not to me if this passes or fails. If it fails I am not out anything; our local shows are not out a lot because we don't have big numbers of dual registered horses showing (and don't have the selection of classes that Karen's earlier example had. We have unlisted entry fees so at most we'd get $45 per horse plus a $5 office fee) But, if it passes I won't be angry and can certainly see the reason for passing it .

And of course we are still friends Kim!! There is nothing personal here and I am not at all angry with you (or at all)! I am sorry to hear you are disenchanted with AMHR.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 21, 2012)

Ok (h)orsefeathers, the shoe does not fit. But do pray tell which page or pages these horrible horses and ponies are on, so we all can see.


----------



## drmatthewtaylor (Oct 21, 2012)

What is the difference between showing AMHR/ASPC at the same show and showing AMHR/AMHA at the same 'show'?

Or is there no difference, so if this doesn't pass then should we tell local clubs they can no longer sponsor an AMHR/AMHA show on the same weekend??

Dr. Taylor


----------



## horsefeather (Oct 21, 2012)

Crabtree Farm,

Just for the record, I don't hate shetlands, just would rather not have them in the AMHR classes. They already have an advantage of being able to go to the Congress and Nationals.

And please, please, please don't tell me that since minis are "a height registry so any shetland that fits the height can show in AMHR." I have heard it a million times. I get it.

Sorry, won't name anyone or any pages. If people can't see the 'extreme' shetlands themselves, then all it would do is provide a HOT, HOT topic for people to argue on. 

I didn't mean to sound snotty about the name. Just have had some folks tell me it doesn't sound like me when posting, and it wasn't.

This is a little off topic, but I think what bugs me the most is the double reg. weaners and yearlings that show. I think most of them are adorable and they almost always win over a true mini. However, I wonder how many of these same winners will be showing in AMHR after they mature?

Pam


----------



## Jacki (Oct 21, 2012)

drmatthewtaylor said:


> What is the difference between showing AMHR/ASPC at the same show and showing AMHR/AMHA at the same 'show'?
> 
> Or is there no difference, so if this doesn't pass then should we tell local clubs they can no longer sponsor an AMHR/AMHA show on the same weekend??
> 
> Dr. Taylor


Dr. Taylor,

The difference to me is that ASPC is a pony and AMHA is a miniature horse. I've heard a zillion times about AMHR being only a height registry but this is where many of us miniature horse fans would argue that after breeding miniature horse to miniature horse for some 50 years or so there really is a distinct animal that is different from a pony. I don't believe miniatue horses are only small Shetlands now, I think there is more to it than that after all of these years of breeding. Many will disagree with me and I appreciate all points of view on this. For me the Arabian is a good illustration...Arabians were used to create the modern day Thoroughbred horse over many generations and yet we don't say a Thoroughbred is really just a faster Arabian. We understand that years of selective breeding can and has created a different animal all together.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 21, 2012)

(Pam) so now the extreme ponies are the horrible ones.

So how would you feel if I guessed that it was ok for me to publically say that these miniature horses look like they were bred to somthing this side of a jackass. But as it was pointed out earlier that there are both poorly bred minis and shetlands.

But you lumped my ponies, my friends ponies, and many others in that statement that you posted earlier.


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Oct 21, 2012)

But there are a lot of beautiful "straight" miniatures that can be not only as competitive as the duals ones, and can beat them.

So what do you think of my miniature, not too bad as a "straight" miniature? No shetland at all. This is an AMHA/AMHR miniature, but ooops he outgrew the A papers.


----------



## Getitia (Oct 22, 2012)

Something to keep in mind is that a "shetland" pony breed cannot just be compared to an Arabian or Morgan or Saddlebred - in that the American shetland pony has many "looks/types" that all show separately - and when the public hears the word shetland - mentally the general public typically without any knowledge of all of the different american shetland divisions thinks of either a little tiny short legged thick pony "or" a high stepping miniature saddlebred type. They completely forget about the look of today's "Foundation" Shetland or the "Classic" Shetland pony. After having thousands of visitors over the years at Equine Affair view todays' true Classic 44 inch Shetland pony - it was very rare - about 1 out of 1000 who correctly identified the classic shetland on exhibit as a classic shetland.

The seed stock of the miniature horse was basically formed from many of the "foundation" shetlands and also small grade shetland ponies - Blue Boy - AKA - Silver White Breeding - Arenosa bloodlines/Kewpie Dolls Oracle/Kewpies Sun - Rowdy - Gold Melody Boy - Buckeroo and so forth

So as Modern (think Hackney Saddlebred type) Shetlands are being bred down in size and hardshipped as a miniature horse - no they don't look like a foundation shetland (and should not) - Plus they are suppose to be shown separately in the Shetland shows - hence they don't look like the "straight" for lack of a more descriptive term miniature horses - aka foundation shetlands. Same with Classics - many of which have known Modern blood.

And trust me the Shetland breeders already have their challenges because there are no type/breeding restrictions between Modern/Foundation/Classic/Modern Pleasure ' American Shetland" subtypes - thus what is and has been occuring is that a modern type shetland can be bred to Foundation types and Classics to Moderns and classics to moderns and what often occurs is a tweener - they are a blend be"tween" these various subtypes and then the owner has to decide what american shetland division do I show this tweener in? If they are foundation sealed ( and many Modern types have foundation seals), but they don't have the action needed to compete in the Modern division - and sometimes are shown in the foundation or classic division.

Just wanted to share my personal thoughts of some of the root issues behind the discussion/comments and provide some fact based information as to why all American Shetlands do not look alike - nor why they should. And when some of the very small Shetland subtypes are shown at the Nationals - why they look different - it is because they should look very different just based on the breeding objectives of the subtypes of the Shetland breed. So sometimes the various subtypes just happen to be small and mature under 38 ( miniature horse height) which by the way all shetland ponies have a maximum height - and no minimum - so for those individuals that breed under 34 shetlands - showing a 32 inch shetland against a 42 inch shetland doesn't have much appeal - any more appeal than showing a 28 inch miniature against a 38 inch miniature.


----------



## RayVik (Oct 22, 2012)

I have done a lt of soul searching about weighing in on this thread but just let me say I think my horses are more correct and on type and prettier then yours (lol) but I have a lot of fun and get a lot of enjoyment trying to prove it to the judges and all my friends at shows ... So I suppose my position would be the more opuritunity I have the more fun I have.... I don't have to register my animals with anyone and when we have contest on who's piece of paper their registration in typed is prettier i will probally enter that contest too as long as i enjoy it and if my minis paper is white and my Shetlands paper is cream so be it because i will still want to believe mine is better and prettier lol

If a animal has papers by our present rules they can show and if its a winning horse Shetland or mini most people know of it and if its up and coming people will hear of it so if its at a show does what it shows as today at a show really matter when next week it shows as " the other"...

Seems that if there is such a difference in style or type between the Shetland and minis ( I know their is) then what better way to bring that to light then to have the same judges forced to evaluate a horse against other hopefully more refined horses/ponies in what they represent at a single venue


----------



## muffntuf (Oct 22, 2012)

JMS Miniatures said:


> Thank you Karen. I would also think you would have to charge an extra office fee as a shetland as well because you are dealing with 2 sets of different paperwork. Almost dealing with a completely different horse. The only thing you wouldn't get would be the extra stall fee.
> 
> Now with this ruling would you have to get a different judge just for the shetlands since this is quoted from the rule book:
> 
> ...


The ASPC/ASPR/NSPPR ponies do not get charged a second office fee for having another set of papers - the show managers just have more classes to enter that one pony into. Hmmmm.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 22, 2012)

It's not the same horse though. If your showing in both you have to pay for both. One set of work on AMHR's side and another set of work for ASPC, and that should also include 2 sets of different numbers.

This could be the same as saying AMHA and AMHR are 2 different shows and 2 totally different registeries. We can say AMHR and ASPC are 2 different shows and 2 different registeries, it just happens to be that they belong in the same club. If managers feel that they should not have people pay the extra office fees then thats their opinion. But I think the managers should have the right to be able to charge a extra office fee for that AMHR/ASPC pony if they decide to show in both. Same goes if shows put on a flat fee, they should also pay a extra flat fee as a pony and as a mini.

This is how I feel after thinking about it. Just let the dual shetlands show as a shetland at the same show. If this is the only way to get shetlands to show then let them do it. Even tho we cannot allow qualification because their aren't enough ASPC shows in the country, which IMO isn't good enough reason not to allow qualification. AMHR has to qualify, AMHR had to start some where. It's listed on the site's home page that ASPC is the oldest small equine registry in existence. So what happened? Why isn't the ASPC flourishing? Instead they have to go thru the AMHR to gain interest.

If ASPC can have many different types and have it actually divided by type (Foundation, Classic, Modern Pleasure, Modern) then why can't AMHR? We can compare it to a Modern competing against a Classic? 2 completely different types but they are still a pony. Same can be said comparing a shetland vs a miniature, they are a different animal. Sure they may belong in the same height category, but that doesn't mean they are one of a same.

When I picture a Pleasure/Saddle type this is what I picture. A horse that is more flash, high-stepping trot. More refined but strong boned. Typically more hot blooded. Large expressive eyes with shaped ears on a well-shaped head. Neck is long with a clean throatlatch, arched and well flexed at the poll. Well-defined, prominent withers and shoulders deep and sloping and strong level back.

Stock/Hunter: A horse that shows more of a powerful build with well muscled hindquarters. Long and sweeping stride with little flexion at the joints. Should move smooth with no excessive knee action or short and choppy movement. Calm and relaxed but pays attention.

Draft: A horse that shows strength, patience, and a docile temperament. Muscular build. Upright shoulder for upright movement. Broad short backs and powerful hindquarters. Much heavier boned.

Now tell me where you majority of the shetlands will belong. I think many of the AMHR only breeders feel that the shetlands have come in and stole the show. A new division a new type and has a winning edge against the miniatures. For sure it is the owners rights to show these shetlands as a miniature if they fit the height requirement and are AMHR registered. But I feel and I'm sure others feel if nothing changes and continues to go on like it is we might as well change the name to American Miniature Shetland Pony Registry. Sure one person won't like one type vs the other and its not a perfect system, just has its been said in ASPC, but should we be forced to accept one type that wins and when our standard is so vague we will naturally have different types in the registry.


----------



## muffntuf (Oct 22, 2012)

Wow! I know this is an age old discussion and it is heated on both sides. But please remember - ASPC is the oldest small equine registry. AMHR was started by the ASPC, so it is under its umbrella. Same as ASPR and NSPPR. I am very happy to have all 4 registries under one roof. Very glad AMHR Nationals holds its own. All these registries exist under the ASPC hat though - it was good business for the ASPC to expand its wings, so to speak - good business practice to offer another registry such as the AMHR and now the ASPR and NSPPR.

ASPC is a business. Not for Profit, but still a business. If the ASPC offered another registry that they thought would bring in money to the registry - then it is worth considering.

Instead of this division - we should look at it as the BOD does as well as the office - its a business.

I don't have any issues with this rule proposal and most show managers I have spoken with this weekend - its no big deal to them.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 22, 2012)

> The difference to me is that ASPC is a pony and AMHA is a miniature horse. I've heard a zillion times about AMHR being only a height registry but this is where many of us miniature horse fans would argue that after breeding miniature horse to miniature horse for some 50 years or so there really is a distinct animal that is different from a pony. I don't believe miniatue horses are only small Shetlands now, I think there is more to it than that after all of these years of breeding. Many will disagree with me and I appreciate all points of view on this. For me the Arabian is a good illustration...Arabians were used to create the modern day Thoroughbred horse over many generations and yet we don't say a Thoroughbred is really just a faster Arabian. We understand that years of selective breeding can and has created a different animal all together.


Gee, you said that good.

I feel that years ago ASPC gave us the chance to create a _new little horse_. If we had wanted to buy another breed we would have, but we saw this as a chance to do something new and exciting. I don't feel that the AMHR, espeically the B division, was created to become a flop house to promote another breed and then to be legally closed to any other influence of any other breed.

It doesn't matter where they come from, it is more improtant to where we they are going, and if changes such as this keep favoring the Shetlands then that is where we will be going.

This might seem like kind of a small matter to some that jost love to show, and not breed. But, it is a very big deal to Straight AMHR Breeders.

I sure hope that someone that is going to Convention, as most of us can't go very often, will print this off this whole thread and pass it around.

We don't all agree, but we do care.


----------



## muffntuf (Oct 22, 2012)

LaVern - I do see your point, but I have not seen anyone start the process of rule change proposals or proposals to start taking the AMHR into a breed distinction on its own merits. Maybe someone has more information than that out there? I am not speaking of AMHA's actions- speaking strictly for AMHR.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 22, 2012)

Perhaps there has been proposals but it never gets a chance to be voted on. I have had several ideas, what I suggested earlier was one of them. And I have asked for help but get no response. I would like to see a change but it needs to be presented right and not just something that I typed up in 5 minutes.


----------



## muffntuf (Oct 22, 2012)

I didn't get any help when I typed up my first proposals, nor do I get help now. Although I do find I spend a lot of time researching for appropriateness in this registry - and if it lines up with what the other divisions in the rule book already have in place, etc. But non-the-less, type it up and work on it for next convention, they are due every July 1st to the appropriate committee.

Not always do they pass, and if you are present you do have the opportunity to change a phrase, word etc. to get it through committee. If you aren't present you have the next year to change it.

It's a process. For as much as I have spent a couple hours reading through this - the rulebook exists already - if you want to change something- everyone involved in that division or registry - needs to hop on board with your proposal to get it passed.


----------



## Lewella (Oct 22, 2012)

I'd hate to see the AMHR ever go to showing on Type. Type is a can of worms, the plethora of divisions and the fights over TYPE are one of the major things that holds ASPC back. That and the population isn't huge with only around 1000 foals registered per year. The only time the ASPC population was huge was in the early 1960's when Shetlands were commanding higher prices than Thoroughbreds. Then the Shetland market went through a MAJOR correction. The correction was so major that it was necessary for the ASPC to call all registration papers in for revalidation in the late 1960's and early 1970's so we'd have an idea of just how many animals were still out there after the market crashed (not enough...which was one thing that led to the registry opening to Hackney, Americana and Welsh outcrosses from the mid 1970's to the mid 1990's). Any papers that were not revalidated were voided. Some of those animals who didn't revalidate went on to become the foundation of the AMHR.

Up until the mid 1980's all Shetlands were shown as Moderns are now. The "original" movement that later became the Classic movement happened in the early 1980's. Within 15 years the ponies that the Classic movement had given a place to show were no longer winning in the Classic division. The Foundation division started in 1999. Now many could argue with validity that the pony that both the Classic and Foundation divisions were created for no longer has a place to show. Foundation is technically a subdivision of the Classic with its own type standard. The Modern Pleasure division is a subdivision of the Modern with shoeing restrictions and without its own standard - it is meant to be a gateway into the Modern division. Oh - and as Getitia pointed out many Moderns are Foundation Certified - all three of my Modern stallions are Foundation Certified. See how confusing that is? Do you really want that for the AMHR?

Type is never as simple as it sounds!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 22, 2012)

Are we happy as it is now?

This is why I haven't presented anything. No idea is better then one. A group really needs to come together if anyone wants a change. This would be bigger then a simple rule change, unless it's a simple case of closing the books for everyone.


----------



## muffntuf (Oct 22, 2012)

Which would still require research and the writing of a proposal to closing the books. But if you the >$100k is any indication of not wanting to close the books because hardshipping is half price right now - I wonder how many BOD members will want to look at closing the books.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 22, 2012)

Perhaps something like allowing of hard shipping ASPC or AMHA to AMHR as non showable Brood Stock.

Prospective mares and stallions at 3 yrs.of age, after inspection, height measurement and DNA (fair fee)

Registering offspring of those broodstock horses at 3 yrs. of age after inspection height measurement and parent qualifying. (fair fee)

Thats says to me that we care about honest papers and height. It also says that the Club thinks right highly of the American Miniature Horse Registry.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 22, 2012)

That also means that you must start doing DNA on ALL breeding stock and all foals at time of registration.


----------



## LaVern (Oct 22, 2012)

Yeah, all the hardshipped ones. Thats what AMHA has had us do in order to hard ship for years. Prove your self worthy, I guess. I always thought it was a good idea.

Maybe, it would not fly, but I hate to see the whole thing close, because what" if" another or Rock E or Kid Lee, or Bob or Rowdy or one of the many others that could help us improve our new horse were kept out. I used to think I wanted it to close, but I have changed my mind.


----------



## ohmt (Oct 22, 2012)

That's an excellent idea, Lavern! I like it-a compromise for both sides


----------



## Minimor (Oct 22, 2012)

AMHA requires it because they also have DNA for horses otherwise. An organization cannot ask hardshipped horses to have DNA done if the registry doesn't otherwise require DNA.

If you want to ensure that breeding is honest and horses are who they are supposed to be then that has to apply to everyone, hardshipped or not. You can't seriously believe that people lie when hard shipping but not when they do regular registrations???


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 22, 2012)

I think its a great idea. Would also help the sales of AMHR only geldings.

As far as DNA goes, bring it on, I'm all for it.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 22, 2012)

To backtrack to the showing on type idea--I see people generally being unhappy with that if it were to be implemented. For one thing--stock type and hunter type would about have to be two divisions--I don't see they belong together.

Secondly -- stock type. Are you thinking QH stock type, or would a Morgan stock horse type fit in there too? The two don't look quite the same and I can see someone being unhappy when the wrong sort of stock horse wins. Same with hunter type; almost certainly someone would show a horse that someone else would consider saddle type (after all, have you see the Morgan hunter horses???) so, if someone wins with a Morgan hunter type of horse the people showing the QH hunter type horse are going to be very upset.

There are Shetlands who are very hunter type. I have one that would be a gorgeous hunter under saddle (my mom sees him western, I see him hunt seat). If he were mini sized and I showed him in hunter type, some people would complain. I would never show him as saddle type...because he isn't. But as hunters go he would be very stylish and people showing a different sort of hunter would be unhappy to be beat by him.

Showing by type wouldn't solve any problems at all.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 22, 2012)

I understand that really hunter type don't belong with stock type. If anything they go more on the lines of pleasure and saddle types. Also if it was separated by type I certainty want movement to be considered which you have said more then one occasion, and I see morgans have more of a animated gait and stock horses don't have that. I see morgans more of a pleasure type. Like I said before my idea is not perfect, which is why I would not want to submit such a proposal. But there needs to be a change that would benefit AMHR as a whole. Ideas like Lavern's is a good one. Ideas like that are better then sitting behind a computer and typing out and crying out foul.

Also going back to DNA it's only going to be a matter of time. It's already started with the sweepstakes. If you have a large herd start DNA now.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 22, 2012)

See--there's the thing though--in a Morgan type Mini (or pony) some would be saddle type, some hunter type, some western type--but a certain percentage wouldn't agree with me.

I imagine we will see DNA come in one day, not sure how soon, I'm not opposed to that but then I'm not breeding so wouldn't have a bunch to do.


----------



## disneyhorse (Oct 22, 2012)

Being able to show by type isn't always the answer... Judges seem to prefer to pick the most extreme of any class. How often have you heard a Shetland exhibitor say "that pony shouldn't be shown Classic, it's breaking level!" Or a mini exhibitor griping that a Country horse is too extreme and should be shown Pleasure.

Fact is, there are Shetland ponies that have their Halter Hall of Fames as BOTH a classic AND a modern! This means that type is subjective and lots of judges see things differently.

We also see minis HOF in both Country and Pleasure. So type is not an answer.


----------



## Lewella (Oct 22, 2012)

Interesting tidbit of history - the first DNA program in the ASPC/AMHR was the Modern Sweepstakes. The Modern Sweepstakes was started as a DNA based program in the 1990's and modeled after the AHHS's Hackney Limited Breeders' Sweepstakes. The Classic Sweepstakes started a few years later and also had a DNA requirement from its inception. The AMHR Sweepstakes existed for many years without a DNA requirement.

(If Holly was breeding she could DNA half her Shetland herd and get them DNA parentage verified as most of my breeding stock already has DNA on file - eventually they all will!)


----------



## LaVern (Oct 23, 2012)

As a Straight AMHR breeder, I am looking at 20 years of stallion reports that I have sent in, on generations of AMHR horses in order to get them registered. Just one wrong number or mistake and those horses are out, or I am viewed as a dishonest breeder. One mistake can throw a horse out.

I have drawers full of paper work that I am scared to get rid of because I may need a copy of this or that or proof of this or that. I almost go crazy that I may forget to do stuff.

If I make a mistake of forget something, that horses papers are no good. I can't sell that horse as a registered horse and it can never come in and show. And rightly so.

However, if I do nothing and just register them AMHA, in they come for 100 or 200 dollars. No paperwork, no records sent to AMHR. I just wander around take a look at my AMHA horses see which one looks good, slap my money down, get a trainer and I could win AMHR Nationals.


----------

