# Big-Moving Minis Must Go ...



## Yaddax3 (Sep 23, 2010)

A proposal will be presented at Convention to address the influx of big-moving, high-stepping Shetlands into the AMHR world. I happen to have one of these high steppers and I fully support this proposal, which would create a separate class for them.

The proposal, by the way, is not mine.

At AMHR Nationals, all six horses in Pleasure Driving Over (36-38) were high steppers with a Shetland background. Minis that were winning National titles in Pleasure Driving just a few years ago can't compete in that division now.

My fear is, all the minis who once were dominant in Pleasure Driving will switch to Country Pleasure Driving, which will impact the minis who once were dominant in Country. And where do they go? Western Country?

We run the risk of making some terrific Pleasure and Country Pleasure minis obsolete unless the big movers/high steppers have a class all their own.

It appears that the two proposals related to measuring at the withers are, in part, an attempt to tamp down the influx of high-stepping, high-withered Shetlands whose last hair of the mane happens to drop quite a way down from the top of the withers. Creating a class for these horses will level the playing field.

I don't want to mess with the current way of measuring because going to a withers measurement will destroy some breeding programs.

In ASPC, we have Modern, Modern Pleasure and Classic divisions to address the variance in movement. It is time to do that with minis, too.

I don't see a downside to this proposal. If you have a high stepper, you're already competing against them. If you don't have a high stepper, you'll no longer have to worry about competing against them. And if you're a trainer, you'll now have another class for a client to show in.


----------



## CLC Stables (Sep 23, 2010)

This division already exists. It is called Park Harness. How is the division going to be decided. What will allow a horse to be entered in to this division, and what will stop them from going into the divisions that they already are entered into.

There has to be a point folks where we as a registry ACCEPT CHANGE, rather than going against it and adding more classes so that our horses don't have to evolve.

I am sorry but eventually if we keep adding classes people will NOT come to shows (and most will say oh sure they will) but a show will no longer be able to be held in 2 or 3 days. THey will be week long shows because of the amount of classes that everyone is wanting to add in.


----------



## CLC Stables (Sep 23, 2010)

Bob I am not trying to negate your post either, I see everyone's perspective, I truly do.

My other comment I wanted to say is we need not make divisions of a show for trainers to add extra clients (no offense to my trainer friends) and I still think the issue would not disappear with the adding of this division. People are still going to enter their horse where they see it best to win, which often times is NOT in the correct place.


----------



## Yaddax3 (Sep 23, 2010)

CLC Stables said:


> This division already exists. It is called Park Harness.


Park Harness is an option, and it was an option during the AMHR Nationals that wrapped up the other day. And there was no more than two minis in any Park Harness Over class.

As it stands, you can't mandate that a high-stepping mini go into Park Harness. With the aforementioned proposal, high-stepping minis can be coaxed into this newly created class if judges make it clear they would be penalized for extreme action in they stay in the Pleasure class that has been offered for years.

I'm all for AMHR evolving, as long as it doesn't make obsolete many of the driving horses already competing.


----------



## CLC Stables (Sep 23, 2010)

What about REDEFINING the standards for Country, Pleasure and Park. Western has some SPECIFICS that really limit that class IE the 5 inches above the wither for a headset. What if we redefine those other classes to carry some specific requirements that would distinguish a true difference.


----------



## drivinghoss (Sep 23, 2010)

The Pleasure Driving division was very good at the AMHR Nationals this past year.

However none of the horses in the Pleasure stakes were Park Harness horses.

A Park Harness horse would break well above level, further more a Park Harness horse would have more hocks then any of the Pleasure horses had.

People need to realize that the Miniature horse has evolved as have training techniques. We should be proud of how the horses in the show ring look like show horses.


----------



## CLC Stables (Sep 23, 2010)

However none of the horses in the Pleasure stakes were Park Harness horses.

A Park Harness horse would break well above level, further more a Park Harness horse would have more hocks then any of the Pleasure horses had.

YOU ARE SO RIGHT WITH THIS STATEMENT. I agree 100%. My wife used to show a park horse in the arabs, and she just giggles when she sees a park class. Kinda sad.


----------



## Minimor (Sep 23, 2010)

I would agree with Rob (CLC)and have to ask this:

Why would anyone expect the division to stay the same over the last 5 or 10 or 20 years? Halter horses today don't look anything like halter horses of 20 or even 10 or 5 years ago (and IMO that is a good thing).It is nice to see that today's Minis have some length of neck and a good length of leg under them.

It's my understanding that some years ago a daisy cutter way of moving was the Country Pleasure standard. CP horses didn't have to have knee or hock flexion. To me, that is not a CP horse, nor is it a good way of moving. I like good knee and hock flexion on all my horses. They can have good "lift" and still have good extension along with it, though many don't seem to believe that. I've got some good moving horses, all of them with good knee & hock flexion--many of them I would class as Country Pleasure type--I wouldn't put them into Pleasure and I sure wouldn't put them into Park. Likewise I've got some I would label Pleasure Driving but again, they are not park horses.

For me "excessive action" in Pleasure would mean the horse's forearm is coming up way above level when he trots. Level or just a smidgen above level would class as Pleasure for me. CP would mean the forearm is not quite level but maybe getting close to it, and the horse wouldn't have quite the high headedness nor the animation of the Pleasure horse. In turn the Pleasure horse would not display quite the attitude and animation of the Park horse.

I don't think I would change things to try and force the divisions to look the same as they did several years ago. In fact, I know I wouldn't.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 23, 2010)

> We run the risk of making some terrific Pleasure and Country Pleasure minis obsolete unless the big movers/high steppers have a class all their own.


Bob I am glad someone else is seeing that there is a issue here -I am not sure what the answer is but I do know we need to think long term about revenue and there is a lot of very nice Pleasure and CP MINIS who have no where to go and handlers who will decide to go elsewhere which many can say tough cookies however I personally do not want to lose their $

I am not interested( no offense meant )in what a Park ARAB or CP ARAB or Morgan look like I am not breeding nor showing Arabs or Morgans or any other breed. These are minis not any of the above breeds or any other breed. I am not sure why there is such a dislike for a mini to look well like a well conformed talented mini

This is not about sore losers or talentless horses it is about mainstream quality horses who will quickly have no where to go and many worrying and concerned not about who is winning but about the financial stablity and popularity of the breed as a whole.There is a reason these minis are so very popular and while of course change happens I am not sure why we want to completely change things that made the Miniature horse as popular as it is today.

I guess I am one who does not find it shocking that a 30 inch mini would not move the same as a Arab Park horse or a Hackney. I would not expect a QH to drive and move the same as I would a Hackney

*I do not know what the answer is and I am not sure an added class is the answer*

however I do know that there is nothing wrong with or no reason to point fingers and scream sore loser to those breeders who have taken great pride in improving the miniature horse while keeping it the same horse that has grown so popular. I am looking foward to Convention will be interesting to hear how others feel.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Sep 23, 2010)

OK, I have seen quite a few posts where people do not wish the place of measurement to change because this would negate people breeding progammes...or similar statements.

So, what is the difference between changing all the classes, and thus negating the goals someone has been working towards, and changing the place of measurement?

Added to which, changing to the withers would be eased in, over a number of years, giving people plenty of time to look ahead and adjust their stallions accordingly, whereas once a class is changed it is changed, maybe this does not happen overnight but it happens with no concessions made to anyone's breeding programmes!


----------



## ruffian (Sep 23, 2010)

The big moving - yes PARK horses that were in pleasure aren't in Park Harness because there's no place to go. There are only 2 classes, over and under. It doesn't have the prestige of any other class. Other divisions have Ladies, Gentlemens, stallion, gelding, mare, and size splits. Since cross entering isn't allowed, most folks choose to enter where they have more choices. If you enter Park, you get one class and the stake.

CP you get Ladies, Gentlemen, Mares, Gelding, Stallion, and several size splits. Why haul all the way to Nationals to show one class? I wouldn't.

Some of The horses being shown in Pleasure do belong in Park. In MINIATURE HORSE Park driving. Not Shetland Park Driving. So those MINIATURES that move well and high, with a higher head set, maybe not breaking level and maybe their head isn't straight up with hocks moving 12" off the ground, but Park in the Miniature horse world, should show in park. The ponies moving like a Hackney belong in Park or at Congress.

IMO the Park moving horses in Pleasure need to be penalized. I went to a judges seminar, and asked why horses with excessive movement aren't being marked down, I was told BY JUDGES AND FUTURE JUDGES that there is no such thing as excessive movement in Pleasure. So until the JUDGES are being trained on what to look for in the Miniature Horse Pleasure class, might as well save our breath.


----------



## kaykay (Sep 23, 2010)

I was at the same clinic and it made perfect sense to me. Dont know why anyone would penalize a horse for being a great mover in a Pleasure class? That clinic was given by some very well respected judges and I do respect their opinion.

The thing I dont understand is why its sour grapes when people oppose a person winning but its not sour grapes when people oppose a horse? To me its sour grapes either way.

All of this stuff on people and horses is constantly evolving. Thats just how it goes and I would hate to see us stop at a standstill and not improve.

Now having said that I do not believe that improvement has to involve a mini with ASPC papers. Just breed a better moving miniature. Thats the goal right?

I feel bad for people that have to defend their wins because of who they are but I also feel bad that now that some also have to defend their horse.

I have been told over and over there is no more room to add classes/divisions.

Honestly Id rather see a novice division added verses another driving division.

Just my two cents

Kay


----------



## Mominis (Sep 23, 2010)

I can totally see why AMHR wouldn't add park classes (like Ladies', Gentlemens', etc.) since they have trouble getting participation in the Over and Under classes alone.

There is no park option for futurity driving horses either, so the young horses with big motors have no choice but to compete in pleasure if they want to compete for futurity money.


----------



## mad for mini's (Sep 23, 2010)

Ruffian : Love your post, very well put.






ETA: Stormy : Very nicely put. Way nicer than I would have been able to word my feelings.


----------



## stormy (Sep 23, 2010)

There is a Park class, two horses entered, one was a Park horse (in my opinion) and one a pleasure type. If Park horses would move into the Park class (that is already offered) numbers would increase and divisions would be added but the owners need to have the guts to put their horses where they belong first!

Again some of us DO NOT AGREE THAT PARK TYPE MOVEMENT IS BETTER THEN PLAEASURE TYPE!! They are differant, one is not BETTER then the other, one is NOT an improvement over the other anymore then Pleasure movement is better then Western Country Pleasure...they are each unique, beautiful and desirable within the breed.

(and frankly guys I am sick of this sour grapes stuff when those who show Pleasure and love the plaeasure type movement ask why Park horses aren't in the Park class. Why is it not sour grapes when Shetland owners say they moved to AMHR because small ponies can't place in Shetland but is sour grapes when miniature breeders suggest we put the modern movers in an appropriate class???)


----------



## Minimor (Sep 23, 2010)

ruffian--a good moving horse is a good moving horse regardless of breed. Sure, Morgans don't move like Arabians, Arabians don't move like Quarter Horses who obviously don't move like either Morgans or Saddlebreds...(and I admit that what I would call a good moving QH would likely be one that is more TB than QH and sure wouldn't get anywhere in the QH show ring...I wouldn't expect a good moving QH to be anything like a good moving Morgan) but where on earth is the rule that states that Miniature horses must be poor movers with no knee or hock flexion? Everyone would be happy if they were still doing their stiff legged little trots?? I don't have any under 30" horses but do have a 33" gelding that can trot level--if I were to show him it would be in pleasure driving, not country pleasure. Overall he sure isn't a park horse. He is also PURE Mini...I don't know how far back you'd have to go to find a registered Shetland in his pedigree (somewhere behind Buckeroo I suppose would be the closest)...and he sure shouldn't have to be put into any "high stepping pleasure driving" with a bunch of Shetlands. He doesn't look anything like a Shetland--he looks like what he is, a 33" Mini.

Lisa--you're being contradictory again. You don't want all these old time breeding programs with their old time/old type movers ruined by the modern show ring trends, but it is okay to ruin other breeding programs, those that are raising the B size horses that will become worthless if the measurement rule is changed to make heights smaller.



Left as things are no one's breeding program is ruined. The majority of Mini owners never show at Nationals. The majority of the high stepping driving horses and Shetland halter type horses are shown at Nationals and at shows in certain other areas (we are not seeing those horses showing here in western Canada for instance) so I venture that many people in many places will continue to buy the type of horses that is most common in most areas. Making changes to eliminate the taller B horses will certainly ruin a number of breeding programs. Poof, just like that they are gone. Doesn't matter if the effective date isn't for 2 years yet, as soon as that rule change gets passed, those programs are done, because that breeding stock will instantly become worthless. And no, you can't justify it by saying they can show pony, because there are plenty of broodmares and even stallions that are up there in the taller heights that are AMHR-only. Showing as ponies isn't an option for them.

And the concern about money...I personally don't think it will be the issue some say it will. Supposing all the ponies and high-stepping horses dropped out of Nationals. How many horses would that cut from the total number entered? How much money would that take away from Nationals? Not just the ponies and high steppers themselves, but any non-pony and not-so-high-stepping entries that those same owners may bring along. Supposing those owners all stayed home & didn't enter any of their horses. How much difference would that make to the numbers?

What is the exact wording of this high-stepping class proposal? Is it one class? A whole division? How many classes in that division? Is there a divsion for Unders and a division for Overs? Or is it Overs only? I ask because I have just in the past week talked to owners who are saying that the thing to do is get more Under sized ponies that can be shown in AMHR Under classes. It will be interesting if these people start coming out with more ponies that are 34" and under.

And you know--I think a lot of the problems would go away if our measuring rule could be enforced. If all stewards were strict about square stance when measuring, if all stewards at Nationals measured the same way, on a level surface. I can't tell you how many people have now told me that while their horses were getting measured by a certain steward on an uphill surface the majority of the big name/big stable horses were getting measured on the level by a different steward, because many were refusing to be measured by any but that one steward...nor how many complaints I've heard about horses that measured in right at the top of the height limit for a specific division--and it doesn't matter if it were the 32-34" class, the 34-36" class or the 36-38" class--horses that measured just small enough to squeak by into that class were out in the ring with horses that were much taller than they were. Too many people and too many different people for that to be just a fantasy on their part. There is something wrong there somewhere. If all those horses were measured into the division they truly belong in, with some being measured out completely, would level the playing field a lot.

If no one can figure out how to make the measuring fair, how does anything think they are going to enforce a rule that states "excessive action to be severely penalized"??


----------



## targetsmom (Sep 23, 2010)

Maybe if shows OFFERED the same number of classes for Park, Pleasure, CP and WCP, the entries would very soon get divided up more the way they should be? Just add up all the classes, divide by 4, and make new labels for the classes. Either divide classes in each driving division by gender of horse, height, gender of driver, or whatever, just so long as they are all the same.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Yaddax3 (Sep 23, 2010)

Just to be clear:

After reading several posts, I can't be sure if anyone thinks I'm in sour grapes mode or supportive of this proposal because I don't have a high stepper and don't want to compete against one.

I do have a high stepper named Enchanted Hollow King Zebulon, who won five National Championships and seven Reserve National titles in Pleasure Driving Over and Roadster Over in Youth, Amateur and Open classes at AMHR Nationals.

I believe Zeb will be competitive against any Pleasure or Roadster mini out there. I'm not worried about him. I'm worried about Pleasure Driving Over classes shrinking because many folks will move their long-time Pleasure horses into Country Pleasure and that currently top-notch Country Pleasure minis will have no place to go.

Several people have mentioned Park Harness as an option. I'm lucky enough to own a Viceroy. Not everyone has one because they are expensive; we were lucky to find one at a reasonable price and refinished it. Anyway, some folks feel it is a competitive disadvantage to show in a two-wheel cart in Park Harness.

Park would not work for our family because of the limited number of classes, particularly in Youth. Three of my children showed Zeb in Pleasure Driving in their age group at Nationals; only one could have shown him in Park because just one Park class is offered for Youth.

The easiest thing for me to do is to pipe down and let Zeb compete in Pleasure Driving classes where most of the minis don't have his motion. But I'm trying to look at the big picture here, and not be self-serving. And the big picture, as I see it, is that many very good national champion Pleasure and Country Pleasure minis are on the road to being obsolete. And if not obsolete, they likely won't be winning at Nationals any more.

I go back to something I mentioned in an earlier post: If we can separate Moderns from Modern Pleasure and Classic ponies based on look and movement, why can't it be done in AMHR?


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 23, 2010)

Yaddax3 said:


> The easiest thing for me to do is to pipe down and let Zeb compete in Pleasure Driving classes where most of the minis don't have his motion. But I'm trying to look at the big picture here, and not be self-serving. And the big picture, as I see it, is that many very good national champion Pleasure and Country Pleasure minis are on the road to being obsolete. And if not obsolete, they likely won't be winning at Nationals any more.
> 
> I go back to something I mentioned in an earlier post: If we can separate Moderns from Modern Pleasure and Classic ponies based on look and movement, why can't it be done in AMHR?


Bob I appreciate your speaking up and appreciate that rather then push any agenda or be self serving you have a ability and forethought able to your your experience as an exhibtor to see the big picture on AMHR as a whole.

I think sometimes we all get so caught up in trying to "prove" our own point we lack the ability to truly see the big picture


----------



## disneyhorse (Sep 23, 2010)

Bob...

"Big Moving" is a pretty general term when it comes to motion. This is where the driving classes get a little tricky.

I'm not sure a lot of those Over Pleasure minis have "too much motion" and need to be "moved to Park" just because way of going and training affects a lot of this.

Park horses should have very high, snappy action but they don't really have the ability to extend, so basically they will look like they are prancing in place. When asked to "extend" they don't necessarily go "faster" but there should be a dramatic change in the height that they are trotting. This ability does NOT come easy for a lot of horses, who rely on the ability to move FORWARD to get that "big trot" that so many people are griping about. Even in the Modern Shetlands, you will see very, very few Park Harness ponies showing, because the talent and athletic training needed to produce such brilliant, controlled motion is very rare/hard to come by/very experienced,intensive training is involved. Oftentimes artificial appliances are used to teach the horse/pony how to work the muscles UPWARDS without getting any forward progress. It is like extreme collection and very, very few horses are capable of that, and very few trainers are able to train that as well. The few "true Park" horses I have seen, they just take your breath away but I have also seen the skill and finesse needed to coax that sort of motion out of a horse.

I personally feel that the Miniature Horse is simply evolving. The miniatures ten years ago moved WAY bigger than the miniatures of the 1980s, and the miniatures of TODAY move WAY bigger than the miniatures of the 1990s.

Breeders are carefully selecting stock that are more and more athletic. People who drive, want to drive a horse with a big motor in the Pleasure classes. No driver/trainer picks a horse with poor athletic ability to show in the ring.

I think people just are not used to seeing such big action in the little guys, but I'm also guessing a majority of miniature people are also not used to seeing what a "true Park" horse moves like, either. It's new. Many mini people don't come from a background where they showed Park Arabs/Morgans/Hackneys... but that doesn't mean they can't learn.

Andrea


----------



## stormy (Sep 23, 2010)

So here is my resume' since some are assuming if we don't all strive for Park horses in our breeding program we don't know what a Park horse is!

I worked with arabian horses and hackney ponies part time while in high school, got a degree in animal science with an emphasis on horse farm management, worked on a quarter horse farm while in school then worked on a very well known arabian farm in california as an internship my last year at the university, rode several top notch park horses there. After graduation I worked with Standardbred racehorses for several years, starting and schooling colts. Then moved to a combined standardbred and arabian farm, back to riding park horses and some english pleasure horses. In the meantime I owned a quarterhorse I showed mostly dressage, some hunter. Just before joining Peace Corp I worked for one of the top miniature horse breeders in Michigan...was totally won over! In Peace Corp I rode nearly daily either Criollo horses or Andalusians...have seen a lot of movement. When I came back I decided to raise minis...then some classic shetlands. Liked the minis better in the end and sold out of the shetlands a few years ago.

I can tell the differance between a western horse, country pleasure, pleasure and Park. Just as when I was working with Arabs I could identify a Western Pleasure horse, Hunt seat horse, English pleasure horse and Park horse....Funny, looks like four divisions there too...oh yes and a fifth...dressage. Would be absolutely terrific to add Dressage driving to Nationals also. I think there is room and talent enough for all these divisions. With some driving classes having better then 50 entries I think it is time to open things up to allow new opportunities! And as stated before there is no reason that Park in the miniature registry needs to look like Park in the Saddlebred registry or Hackney registry or any other registry. That division will evolve as well.

(and I do find it fairly insulting to be told the reason I don't want all minis to move like hackneys is because I am uneducated about horses and don't know any better!




)


----------



## horsefeather (Sep 23, 2010)

Bob, I applaud you for coming on here and voicing your opinion. Lisa, I agree with both you and Bob. I'm sure I'll get smacked for this, but I am getting just a little, teeny bit tired that everything will be solved if the stewards did their job. I truly think that those of you that are complaining about the stewards and judges should apply for either/or your judging/steward cards.

I'll tell you right now folks would be on here saying how bad a job you did as a steward and/or judge! You CANNOT please everyone, period!

I also hate the way the 'big movers' are taking over the Pleasure Class. Personnaly, I like the way they moved 5 years ago. I could drive one then, but so many of today's 'Pleasure' horses are too hot for me. I'm just too old. We have a Hall of Fame driving horse and I could handle him just fine.

Another thing some of you are missing is the 'training' of these high steppers. Quite a few (NO, NOT ALL OF THEM) are wearing a number of different attachments on their feet. I have always said, and I really believe, that a horse should be natural. If you could see some of the things that make the high steppers step the way they do, and not care, then there is no hope for you!! Believe me or not, I have seen with my own eyes several things that are being done and if that was the only way I could get my horse to step like that I just wouldn't show him. Saying they are just being enhanced is like a palomino is being enhansed dyed black.

I don't know the answer either, wish I did. I DO, however, have to agree that the judges should read the rulebooks more. When I ask hubby why he placed a certain horse the way he did, the answer is always the same: "He/she was the best horse out there." Until the judges begin penalizing the high headed, high stepping horse that when asked to back wants to rear over backwards, they will continue and actually, I believe, will get worse.

JMHO

Pam


----------



## dannigirl (Sep 23, 2010)

I have not read all the post to this thread, but maybe the answer would be to add more classes to the park harness division bringing the number of class options more in line with the other divisions,rather than add another division. Also, Maybe there should be more difinitive classifications for the driving divisions we now have. This may be a way to have a place for the high steppers without adding a new division....


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 23, 2010)

I agree something needs to happen but I don't agree with adding a whole new division. Right now it stands for Pleasure Driving that excessive movement should not be penalized, that just means any high stepping horse can go in. They need to rewrite the rules for Pleasure that will make those high moving horses to go into the park class. Plain and simple.


----------



## horsehug (Sep 23, 2010)

Stormy,

I do not drive in shows anymore and have no opinion about all the classes being debated or argued.

But Wow! I for one am very impressed with your resume!!

You have really done a lot with horses, and educationally also!

Thanks for posting it!

Susan O.


----------



## Sanny (Sep 23, 2010)

horsefeather said:


> Bob, I applaud you for coming on here and voicing your opinion. Lisa, I agree with both you and Bob. I'm sure I'll get smacked for this, but I am getting just a little, teeny bit tired that everything will be solved if the stewards did their job. I truly think that those of you that are complaining about the stewards and judges should apply for either/or your judging/steward cards.
> 
> I'll tell you right now folks would be on here saying how bad a job you did as a steward and/or judge! You CANNOT please everyone, period!
> 
> ...


Pam I have to agree with you and also say that I get tired of people complaining about the stewards and the judges because I personally think both are extremely difficult jobs and we should all appreciate the people that are willing to put themselves out there and do it. I have yet to see a steward or a judge that hasn't been trying to just do the best job that they possibly can and are putting in long hours for very little compensation and a whole lot of grief.

I do also want to bring up our horse Zeb, who won several national titles at both Congress and AMHR Nationals. I'd love for you to have the opportunity to drive him sometime. He is so much fun and I know you'd have a blast. He isn't as fancy and refined as some of the other pleasure horses but he is a fast mover and is also considered one of the "high steppers" out there but his movement and action is completely natural and I am very proud of that fact.

His feet are also trimmed in the manner that is best for his comfort and soundness and not trimmed to have an effect on his stride or driving action. We were told when we were taking him to Congress that we would have to put shoes and/or plates on him and would have to use artificial enhancements in order to be competitive. We chose not to -- mostly because we don't have a clue about how to do any of that and so far we've pretty much done things on our own without a trainer -- and he managed to more than hold his own against the other ponies.

He also isn't a "hot" horse by any stretch of the imagination. He won multiple championships and reserve championships in classes ranging from lead line with a 4 year old to obstacle to pleasure driving to roadster. At AMHR and Congress, he won driving classes with our 8 year old, 13 year old and 15 year old in youth and then had wins in amateur and open classes. He was slow and steady and careful for the 8 year old who is a rather tentative driver and then stepped it up and gave more for the older kids and then REALLY stepped up for my husband and I when we asked him for it.

As far as the current pleasure horses being hot or hard to handle I think some of it comes from pent-up energy, what feed and supplements are given to them, etc. -- not from the horses actual personality. I need my horses to be calm and able to be safely handled by kids so the kids are around them all the time and I am careful about what I feed and even during the show season all of our horses are turned outside together and only stalled when fed or the night before we leave for a show. They do a lot of running and playing and interacting and usually get to eat hay outside together as a herd and I think all of that has a good effect on their mentality. I'm not likely to win any halter championships with any of our horses anytime soon (at Nationals someone jokingly asked if Zeb was a pregnant broodmare) but they are easy to handle and they've got stamina, a lot of heart, a lot of endurance and great attitudes and are usually pretty calm.

Andrea (Disneyhorse) also makes an excellent point in that the breed is simply evolving and changing and most people that drive these days do want a horse with more action and movement. That sort of horse also is going to usually stand out in the show ring and catch the eye of the judges. I know how much fun it is to drive a horse like Zeb myself and how much I enjoy watching others drive him and I'd like more horses like him with his movement, talent, heart and personality.


----------



## horsefeather (Sep 23, 2010)

Mary,

Thanks for your comments. I know your horse and never thought he has been 'enhanced' as he does look natural. I also really like him. I had a 1/2 QH and 1/2 Arab once that was like your 'Zeb' (funny, that was Curt's dad's name



) Anyway, this mare handled different depending on the rider. I think, though, they are rare and if someone has the luck to have one own you during one's lifetime, they are very, very lucky.





As for your horses not being 'hot.' I like the way you treat them. I agree that lot's of times the horses are 'made' hot by us wonderful humans!





I would be delighted to drive your horse someday. He does look like he is a lot of fun. And, like you said, he really puts out for you and Bob. But as I said in my previous post, unfortunately he isn't the 'norm.' If people would stop using 'enhancing' things and let the truly natural horse show then maybe there would be more horses like your 'Zeb.' Hopefully, maybe some folks will actually breed those good traits into more horses that are not only pretty to watch, but are actually calm and easily handled.

Pam

P.S. Thanks for the vote of confidence for the stewards and judges. I realize that some of them are not doing a good job, but hopefully most of them/us are and really care about their job. AND, big congrats for all youall did at Nationals!!


----------



## LaVern (Sep 23, 2010)

I think that most will breed for the extreme. The heavy horses have gotten so big that they get tired just carrying them selves, The Quarters have such a small foot that they can't do a days work. The Arabs bred for such a long neck that the backs have gotten long too.

That is just what we do.

When Larry decided to bring in the Roadster In Hand -I call it the Woop Um Up Class-It was just the beginning. In a few short years the Judges dared to pull out a few and asked them to pretty much work at the rail. Oh, man it was fun to watch, but what if they had asked them each to do a trick. Who could do the best trick. Who says that high lifting legs are better than say knowing how to bow down or count to ten with their hoofs.


----------



## maestoso (Sep 23, 2010)

Do you realize that we once addressed this issue by creating country verses pleasure? And again when we included western country. The issue you are trying to address is not unique. Adding more classes might be a quick fix, but soon someone will complain that yet another is needed. Excuse my frankness, but it all comes down to someone feeling like they can't compete, they can't win. "I can't win so I need a new class where I can!" NO! The answer is, "I can't win so I need a new horse more appropriate to the current level and trends, or I need train harder to work up to that." Should we add a stocky/western halter class too? How about a halter class specifically for horses with short necks? That way everyone has a chance to win!


----------



## LaVern (Sep 24, 2010)

Hey, maybe I am on to something. Maybe the driving horses have to do more stuff. One of the best driving trainers and judges that I know always says that it is manners first, in the country driving. Maybe the horses have to do something else to prove they have manners. Like stand still while the driver gets out to check tires, I don't know something else.


----------



## dreaminmini (Sep 24, 2010)

I am fairly new to this showing game. This was my second year going to Nationals. I have watched some of the various driving classes. I feel that SOME of the horses out there were definitely in the wrong class. But they were rewarded by the judges. Probably because they stood out from the rest that were using the more correct movement and so it would seem less animated. How about more defined/specific guidelines for each of the driving classes so the judges have more concrete guidelines to follow?

But I have also heard that many horses drop down a level for Nationals. So Pleasure drops to Country and Country drops to Western. Where does the Western go? Maybe we should institute a rule that states whatever driving classes you compete in during the show season is what you have show in at Nationals. For example by June 30 (allowing you time to figure out where your horse fits) you should have to pick your driving class and stick with it for the rest of the show season or at the very least you would have to follow through and show in those driving classes at Nationals. So if you show Country Pleasure you compete in Country Pleasure at Nationals. Same goes for Pleasure. Just my 2 cents if it's worth that


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 24, 2010)

LaVern said:


> Hey, maybe I am on to something. Maybe the driving horses have to do more stuff. One of the best driving trainers and judges that I know always says that it is manners first, in the country driving. Maybe the horses have to do something else to prove they have manners. Like stand still while the driver gets out to check tires, I don't know something else.


Its called Reinsmanship. That would be a awesome class to add to atleast the local shows. I know the OK shows offered it this year as a NR class. I hope they have it next year and I'll put my horse in it. If those who don't know its basiclly like a showmanship class only for driving, you also have to perform certain maneurvers off and/or on the rail.

You know I have got to ask what would make these big-moving minis go to this new class when they won't go to Park? Why add a whole new divison where I don't see them going into it when they are kicking butt in Pleasure? I am totally against the idea of adding a whole new division before we fix the rules for Pleasure. Lets make that class as detailed as we did for Western.


----------



## kaykay (Sep 24, 2010)

Bob I adore you and your family and think you guys are a great asset to ASPC/AMHR.

Usually I agree with you but just cant on this one.

Whether or not there were ASPC/AMHR horses wouldnt matter, its still going to evolve and change and get more extreme. I remember a close friend of mines stallion winning CP Nationals class years ago. People screamed and threw a fit that he "was too big of a mover and too hot" He did not have ASPC papers and in fact was all A breeding. It should have been my friends glory day but instead she was in tears of people tearing her horse apart. Obviously the judges thought he was the winner. Could he compete today? No. But all those years ago he was considered too extreme by the people/horses he beat. Its constantly changing.

I worry that eventually we are going to have the purple polka dotted class division just to be sure everyone wins.


----------



## drivinghoss (Sep 24, 2010)

I dont believe that enchancing a driving horse's movement is any more cruel than tying a halter horse's head up high to develop his neck or withholding water from halter horses so they will be tucked up for a class.

I agree that manners should be the most important thing in a Country class.

Pleasure horses should have a brillance about them.

No matter how horses move, the fact that people are passionate about their love for their horse makes the AMHR a great place to show. It takes all kinds of horses to make for a great registry.

I love my 28" horse who can barely trot over dandelions as much as my 38" park harness horse, because they both try their hardest and make my day better by being horses.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 24, 2010)

Its funny I had to add, my friend has or had this 35" Pleasure Driving mare. Her movement was awesome, but she wasn't so good on manners. Even the judges said next year she should be unbeatable. My friend broke this horse, she was like a million dollars, then you take her to Nationals now all of the sudden she is a Country Pleasure horse. Her manners were there but her movement dropped. If she switched her I think she could have been a National calibar horse in Country. So in Pleasure horses do you have to sacrifice manners for movement?


----------



## Mominis (Sep 24, 2010)

In coming to the minis, I was surprised not to see a Fine Harness division. The Fine Harness horse wouldn't have the brilliance of the park horse, but would have bigger motion than seen in Pleasure. Would this be a direction that AMHR could go to solve this movement issue?


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 24, 2010)

Mominis said:


> In coming to the minis, I was surprised not to see a Fine Harness division. The Fine Harness horse wouldn't have the brilliance of the park horse, but would have bigger motion than seen in Pleasure. Would this be a direction that AMHR could go to solve this movement issue?


Perhaps they should just rename the class and put it as fine harness. I really don't understand the rules for Park, all I know is hardly anybody goes in it and you don't see that many horses that actually belong in that class and are in it.


----------



## JWC sr. (Sep 24, 2010)

Evolution is the natural process of everything, while I agree that a horse needs to be in the proper class for the style and type of movement they have. Limiting the breed is not something that we want to do simply from the standpoint of breeding horses with fluid, graceful and functional movement should be a goal of all of us.

Puttering around the ring with a very limited range is none of those things I mentioned above.

I think there is a two fold correction that can be made and have positive consequences as versus negative ones.

1. A better description of what each type horse is supposed to be, IE: why a horse is is a pleasure horse as versus a country horse, etc etc.

2. Instruct our judges to not place horses that are too extreme for that particular class whatever it is. Also make sure they understand and adhere to the standards we as a breed set up. If not have a set of relational penalties for non-adherence.

Those two simple things will over a relatively short period of time teach people, judges and breeders what we as a registry and breed are looking for.


----------



## Yaddax3 (Sep 24, 2010)

JWC sr. said:


> Evolution is the natural process of everything ...


I wholeheartedly agree about evolution within AMHR.

A few years ago, we evolved into adding a Western Country Pleasure class so minis that weren't upheaded and didn't have the action to compete at the highest level of a Country Pleasure class had someplace to go.

I see the addition of a Pleasure Driving class for the big moving high steppers as evolution, also. We need to evolve to a place where, just as we found a spot for Western Country Pleasure horses at one end of the driving spectrum, we find a spot for the high steppers at the other end.

I don't want to get to the point where there are a half dozen or maybe a dozen high steppers in Pleasure Driving Over and 100 minis in a Country Pleasure Driving class at AMHR Nationals. But that is what we face because I believe all these Pleasure Driving minis without high-knee and hock action will move into Country. It already is happening.

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not worried about competing in Pleasure Driving Over, whether it remains status quo or goes to a class for high steppers. I've already got my high stepper, and he's a darn good one. I'm worried about what the ripple effect will be.


----------



## muffntuf (Sep 24, 2010)

Could you imagine having to split a driving class into thirds? 100 entries?


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Sep 24, 2010)

muffntuf said:


> Could you imagine having to split a driving class into thirds?  100 entries?


It's been done. I think it was Nationals or Worlds a few years ago- there were 69 horses and they split it into three heats.... Yowzers!


----------



## muffntuf (Sep 24, 2010)

Yeah but we are talking potentially 100 horses. 69 is hard to keep track of -- but 100?


----------



## JWC sr. (Sep 24, 2010)

Wouldn't that be a wonderful problem to have. 100 horses in any class means to me we would be doing something right. LOL

Split it into 4 goes if need be and then go back with the top 16 or so.


----------



## susanne (Sep 24, 2010)

I suppose this belongs in a separate topic, but I'd like to echo Stormy's and JMS's suggestions of offering driven dressage and/or reinsmanship at Nationals. Classes that reward the art of driving and the longterm progress of horse and driver.

The existing classes are great, but they're more about how the horse looks than how it drives.

I would much rather see these classes than additional divisions.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 24, 2010)

You know what after it was discussed with me on Park Harness I really don't see the point in that class and I honestly don't know why AMHR come up with that. Now you can find some Park horses coming from the moderns, but they aren't miniatures.

Honestly like everyone has said and this has been brought up time and time again and for once I'll agree with it the shetlands coming into AMHR according to everyone else is evolution. This is what everyone wants then this is just what everyone is going to get. Adding a whole new division is not going to help, cause how are you going to still keep those horses out of the pleasure class? They are pleasure horses, their is nothing wrong with them, but yes your miniature is not going to beable to beat them thats why I see it in the future more shetlands will be showing and fewer miniatures, especially in the over divison.


----------



## ruffian (Sep 24, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> You know what after it was discussed with me on Park Harness I really don't see the point in that class and I honestly don't know why AMHR come up with that. Now you can find some Park horses coming from the moderns, but they aren't miniatures.
> 
> Honestly like everyone has said and this has been brought up time and time again and for once I'll agree with it the shetlands coming into AMHR according to everyone else is evolution. This is what everyone wants then this is just what everyone is going to get. Adding a whole new division is not going to help, cause how are you going to still keep those horses out of the pleasure class? They are pleasure horses, their is nothing wrong with them, but yes your miniature is not going to beable to beat them thats why I see it in the future more shetlands will be showing and fewer miniatures, especially in the over divison.


IMO This is NOT what everybody wants, but it IS what everybody is going to get.

You're right, the Modern shetland is going to bring in Park movement, but it will go in Pleasure, and the judges are going to place it, and the true miniature pleasure horse is going to disappear.


----------



## Flying minis (Sep 24, 2010)

Just came into minis - but have a long time experience in Saddlebreds. Years ago, when I first got into Saddlebreds, there was the same debate ongoing. At the time, there were all the divisions there are now - Fine Harness, Pleasure Driving, Show Pleasure Driving, and Country Pleasure Driving. Each was progressively less judged on movement and more on manners as you went from Fine Harness to Country. I could easily take my horses into Country, they didn't have to have extreme action, they had to have good manners, and be good movers, but not extreme with headset or action. Lots of Saddlebreds showing, in all divisions. Then horses started moving down divisions as the breed "evolved". Some of the most talented movers ended up in Country - because they could still trot level with no weight, pads, etc (which weren't allowed in country). So what has happened now, years later? Country horses move level, the Show Pleasure division has all but disappeared, and the Pleasure and Fine Harness horses are essentially the same horses. And the number of horses at a show? Drastically reduced, because people like me, who used to be able to train, work, and show their own horses, can't compete. Saddlebreds started moving to dressage, driving, even hunter - and being used to breed Sport Horses.

I see AMHR at a crossroads right now - they can embrace ALL types of minis by setting a graduated set of classes with good definition of types for each class, and educating judges and exhibitors, or they can keep moving to more and more action, go the way of the Saddlebred, and lose many of the people who are showing now to other breeds or discipliness. Evolution is a natural progression - but you can choose the direction you evolve - evolution toward all high moving horses is not the only way to evolve. I especially see that with a breed that has limited performance options (no multiple styles such as in riding), ensuring that more people can compete in performance classes, rather than fewer, would seem to be the way to go.


----------



## muffntuf (Sep 25, 2010)

Flying Minis you have some good points. I wouldn't want either the ASPC or the AMHR to evolve out of the show ring!


----------



## Tam VanderWerf (Sep 25, 2010)

*Ruffian's quote:* You're right, the Modern shetland is going to bring in Park movement, but it will go in Pleasure, and the judges are going to place it, *and the true miniature pleasure horse is going to disappear*.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Then the country pleasure horse is going to disappear....then the western country pleasure horse.... when does it end? This is making us re-evaluate our breeding program and honestly we're quite disheartened.

*Flying mini's quote*: Evolution is a natural progression - but you can choose the direction you evolve - evolution toward all high moving horses is not the only way to evolve. *I especially see that with a breed that has limited performance options (no multiple styles such as in riding), ensuring that more people can compete in performance classes, rather than fewer, would seem to be the way to go.*

Well said.


----------



## Minimor (Sep 25, 2010)

I don't think it's likely to be that drastic in AMHR, that so many people will leave Nationals to do other things. Miniatures aren't the big money game that Saddlebreds are--sure, Miniatures are getting to be more of a big money thing, with 'who you are' being more important now than it was a few years ago, but they are still a long way from what the Saddlebred world is. Morgans are the same--weighted shoes on pretty much everything, hunter pleasure horses included, it's been very difficult for the little people to keep up in that world for many years now, yet the World & Grand National show this year still has somewhere around 1100 entries--so there are still plenty of people that are in the game and willing to shell out big bucks to stay there (check out what it costs to show a Morgan at OKC sometime!)

Minis are still easier than those big horse breeds because there is no shoeing. That levels the playing field a whole bunch. If you've got a good horse with good movement and the judging is fair, not biased in favor of any big name trainers that may be showing against you, you still have a fair shot of winning. You are not at all limited because you don't have a farrier that can shoe your horse up or by the fact that you don't want to shoe your horse up in order to be competitive.

And yes, there are people trying to make their big moving horses bigger by using chains, elastics, maybe shackles? I don't know how many people are using shackles on Minis, if any--chains and elastics for sure. To whomever it was that commented on the awful practices used to try and "make" bigger movement--I'm not disagreeing with that at all. But, that doesn't really have anything to do with the big movers in pleasure classes problem. There are people using those same "enhancement devices" on not-so-big-moving Minis as well. Action devices are really a whole different topic. Putting big movers into their own class won't stop people from using chains and elastics--they will continue to use devices on the big movers and they will continue to use devices on the not so big movers. I have no use for action devices & don't use them. I have seen too many horses have their action ruined by these devices--and and in the breeds that are shod I really dislike seeing the horses that are overshod & just jerk their front feet up off the ground, with the canter being a gait where the front feet get jerked up and then flung out & up in front of the horse. That just looks SO bad.


----------



## Flying minis (Sep 25, 2010)

Minimor said:


> I don't think it's likely to be that drastic in AMHR, that so many people will leave Nationals to do other things.
> 
> I don't know that you'll see so many lost at Nationals - as you said, other breed Nationals are still big too - but have you seen the drastic decline in entries, and the corresponding lack of shows, locally in those breeds? When you stop allowing different types of horses within the breed to be competitive, those types stop showing. I'm not as concerned about National shows - what about the local level? That's where your new folks come from (like me), and that's where they decide if they're going to stay involved or not.
> 
> On a side note, I don't think you can compare the movement of minis with big horses for one reason - shoes. I don't think you can expect the criteria for an unshod mini park harness (or pleasure driving) to be the same as that of a big horse who may be carrying weighted shoes, lead, and pads. Saying an unshod mini park harness should have the same movement as a big horse Park Harness? That right there limits the "suitable" Park Harness horses to the very few extreme natural movers.


----------



## Minimor (Sep 25, 2010)

> I don't know that you'll see so many lost at Nationals - as you said, other breed Nationals are still big too - but have you seen the drastic decline in entries, and the corresponding lack of shows, locally in those breeds? When you stop allowing different types of horses within the breed to be competitive, those types stop showing. I'm not as concerned about National shows - what about the local level? That's where your new folks come from (like me), and that's where they decide if they're going to stay involved or not.
> On a side note, I don't think you can compare the movement of minis with big horses for one reason - shoes. I don't think you can expect the criteria for an unshod mini park harness (or pleasure driving) to be the same as that of a big horse who may be carrying weighted shoes, lead, and pads. Saying an unshod mini park harness should have the same movement as a big horse Park Harness? That right there limits the "suitable" Park Harness horses to the very few extreme natural movers.


Our provincial Morgan show has fizzled out, but that is in all honestly nothing at all to do with shoeing or horses showing in the wrong divisions--we didn't have the high powered horses nor the big money people showing here. We were all "little people" having fun with our Morgans. Entries gradually fizzled out as families with kids quit showing after those kids grew up and left home & left horses behind completely. Other people retired from breeding and showing and the few that were left weren't enough to keep any show going. I don't think there were ever complaints here about our local shows having horses that were showing out of their division!! Out west where there are a lot more Morgans and there is a lot more money overall the Morgan shows are still going strong. Saddlebreds...never did have a presence here. Arabians were very big here, with two very big shows. Those are gone, primarily because it got to the point where they couldn't get anyone to run them. With no local shows, people got out of the breed.

I'm not sure who expects the unshod Minis to move like shod up big horses. I don't. But I do know which unshod big horses I would consider to be suitable for Park and which ones I would classify as pleasure or country pleasure, and I apply that unshod "standard" to the small equine as well. Definitely the number of Minis that qualify as Park is extremely small. At this point in time I would say that it is limited to the very few Modern Shetlands that have been small enough to measure into AMHR, and maybe not even all of those.


----------



## horsefeather (Sep 25, 2010)

Flying Minis....I SO agree with you!! You may not have been in minis very long, but you sure have a handle on what's happening.






Unfortunately, there are few of us that feel that way. I have never seen the amount of farms selling out like last year and this year. They certainly aren't being replaced as fast as they are leaving!

I can see it happening already, but those with the rose colored glasses on either can't see or don't want to see. I see 2 or 3 shows a year dying out over the country. And it's NOT about sour grapes. But when you work so hard and have a nice horse then go to a show and have the 'big movers' in your class, you already know you aren't going to win. And, even if winning isn't everything, you sure need some to get your horse Hall of Famed. We have several driving horses, used to have a Pleasure horse, but retired him because he can't compete with what's winning now. Can't afford to just take horses to a show to fill classes. Way too expensive. I'm not saying we want or even expect to win everytime, but, as I said, you do need a few wins. And, as I've said many, many times, cruel or not, I won't do all that stuff to my horse to make him win. If no one else did, it would make it a better playing field. But, we know that won't happen, don't we.

We aren't breeding anymore and certainly can't afford to purchase the kind of horse that's winning in Pleasure now (nor would I want to), after all Social Security only goes so far, and that distance is getting shorter and shorter.

JMO

Pam


----------



## Mominis (Sep 25, 2010)

I guess I'm having trouble seeing what you guys are talking about. Can anyone post a photo of a horse who, in your opinion is an ideal Single Pleasure horse and possibly one that you would call park? My Saddlebred/Morgan/Arab history must be clouding my judgement and I really would like to see what you mean exatcly, just to educate my eye.


----------



## midnight star stables (Sep 25, 2010)

I know park harness allows both viceroy carts and 2-wheel carts; however, it is very uncommon to see a 2-wheeled cart used. Now IMO, it does take away from the whole picture, but to be honest, if I had a horse with movement that could go pleasure or park, I would still enter the park class, as having a park harness horse is a personal goal. Park classes also ONLY offer open and stake classes. I think offering the extra classes, such as ladies, youth, amateur and gentlemen driving, are also important.

I think that the rules about Park should be changed. I think that the class should push the use of 2-wheel carts over that of viceroy. Why? Because that is the only real difference in the class. I know I wouldn't be able to bring both a viceroy and my grabber to every show, as I just don't have the room. I know I am not the only one. I know that I always show my driving horses in either a ladies class or a amateur class as well as open and stakes. Park harness classes don't allow for this.

I think if you changed the name and the vehicle, and gave the class as much "glory" as the current Single Pleasure driving class, you may have more entries. Name it something like "Modern Pleasure Driving, or Extreme Pleasure Driving" so that it still sounds like one of the "normal" driving classes we offer, and do away with the "Park" class. I think this class should be more open then the current park class. Maybe incentives should be offered to enter this class. Maybe money, or year end awards, or an article in the Journal covering the class and maybe a write-up in the Journal of the top 10 all star horses(and their farm) in that class of that year. I think that if we support the _improved_ "Park" class, there might be happier members all round? You'll give the "big-movers" their own class, and a reason to be there. Hype up the glory for the class, and make it something impressive - not a "joke".

I am NOT for adding another class, but I would support CHANGING our current class.



I think that there are some flaws with the current "Park" class, and changes may help. I am hoping that in the next 5 to 10 years, I will showing in Park harness; no matter what it is like then. I will do my part to support the class.


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (Sep 25, 2010)

There have been a lot of replies to this topic so I'm just going to list a few small comments below rather than a big reply of my own.



dreaminmini said:


> Maybe we should institute a rule that states whatever driving classes you compete in during the show season is what you have show in at Nationals. For example by June 30 (allowing you time to figure out where your horse fits) you should have to pick your driving class and stick with it for the rest of the show season or at the very least you would have to follow through and show in those driving classes at Nationals. So if you show Country Pleasure you compete in Country Pleasure at Nationals. Same goes for Pleasure.


Love it!! I understand that horses who can compete locally in one division might not be "fancy enough" to compete in that division at Nationals but making a rule like that might do an awful lot to produce classes full of horses who honestly belong in that division. If Single Pleasure horses can't just drop down to Country and Country to Western...well, guess what? The real Country and Western horses would be left to win those classes! And enforcing clear specifications for each class would ensure that a fancier mover would find no benefit in dropping down to Country or Western early as the judges would not reward a non-appropriate entry.



JMS Miniatures said:


> Its called Reinsmanship....If those who don't know its basiclly like a showmanship class only for driving, you also have to perform certain maneurvers off and/or on the rail.


I love Reinsmanship but don't see how it's like Showmanship.



It's not on the ground, it's not about the cleanliness or presentation of the horse, it doesn't necessarily include a set pattern...Reinsmanship is the equivalent of ridden Equitation or Horsemanship classes where it is judged on the rider's skill and form.



drivinghoss said:


> I dont believe that enchancing a driving horse's movement is any more cruel than tying a halter horse's head up high to develop his neck or withholding water from halter horses so they will be tucked up for a class.


Please tell me you are joking. Those things ARE cruel, and have been denounced for years! I can't even find words to express my dismay that anyone would think, anatomically speaking, that tying up a halter horse's head would somehow develop proper neck muscles.



Good lord. I agree whole-heartedly with the rest of your post but this paragraph made me literally sick to my stomach.



JMS Miniatures said:


> You know what after it was discussed with me on Park Harness I really don't see the point in that class and I honestly don't know why AMHR come up with that. Now you can find some Park horses coming from the moderns, but they aren't miniatures.


Is it just me or isn't any ASPC or AMHA horse under 38" eligible for registration with AMHR and therefore a "miniature horse" by default? Despite closing the books we are not yet a BREED. Bloodlines do not matter. Only size and eligibility matter, and therefore, like it or not, an undersized Modern Shetland is every bit as much a miniature horse as one from 30 years of AMHA breeding. That's just the way it is! I am one who prefers a different type of mover in my own barn and want to see there remain a place for that sort of horse, but see below for a further discussion of doing that.



Flying minis said:


> Just came into minis - but have a long time experience in Saddlebreds. Years ago, ... And the number of horses at a show? *Drastically reduced, because people like me, who used to be able to train, work, and show their own horses, can't compete. Saddlebreds started moving to dressage, driving, even hunter - and being used to breed Sport Horses.*
> I see AMHR at a crossroads right now - they can embrace ALL types of minis by setting a graduated set of classes with good definition of types for each class, and educating judges and exhibitors, or they can keep moving to more and more action, go the way of the Saddlebred, and lose many of the people who are showing now to other breeds or discipliness. *Evolution is a natural progression - but you can choose the direction you evolve - evolution toward all high moving horses is not the only way to evolve.* I especially see that with a breed that has limited performance options (no multiple styles such as in riding), ensuring that more people can compete in performance classes, rather than fewer, would seem to be the way to go.


Here, here!! Excellent post and I agree 100%. Minis have already started doing that by moving to the American Driving Society instead of the registry shows and that is a trend I only see growing in the next few years. It has always struck me that in a breed that claims to be at true miniature, there should be room for ALL types just as there are in the full-sized breeds. Stock type, hunter type, fine harness type...all should be welcomed if you wish the breed to continue to grow in a healthy, sustainable direction.



Flying minis said:


> I don't know that you'll see so many lost at Nationals - as you said, other breed Nationals are still big too - but have you seen the drastic decline in entries, and the corresponding lack of shows, locally in those breeds? *When you stop allowing different types of horses within the breed to be competitive, those types stop showing.* I'm not as concerned about National shows - what about the local level? That's where your new folks come from (like me), and that's where they decide if they're going to stay involved or not.


And this is why I would not agree with adding yet another class for high moving horses. That is what Single Pleasure is supposed to be and the fact that there are better and better movers in that class is what we're _supposed_ to be breeding for! The fact it takes Shetland blood to get that a lot of times is not really relevant to the overall picture. The end result is they're moving more like the class description requires and lower moving horses aren't going to beat higher movers in a class that is judged on high action.

I too do not want to see good-quality performance horses forced out of the ring but think diversifying the _types_ of driving supported would be a far more effective route for continued entries than simply adding yet another high action class. Pinto makes it work, the ADS makes it work, and maybe we should too.

Leia


----------



## Minimor (Sep 25, 2010)

> If Single Pleasure horses can't just drop down to Country and Country to Western...well, guess what? The real Country and Western horses would be left to win those classes!


 Not necessarily--what such a rule might do is cause people to look at where they will want to show their horse at Nationals & then will show their horse in that division all summer. So, instead of showing in Pleasure at the local shows and dropping into CP for Nationals, that horse will just show CP all year. Personally that is what I would do--I figure if the horse is one thing for Nationals then it is the same thing otherwise, and I would show it that way all the time. I would anyway, rule or no rule--people should go by what the horse is, not by what his competition is.


----------



## susanne (Sep 25, 2010)

While it won't solve everything, I believe AMHR and AMHA need to more clearly define each division and give the judges a clearer definition of what they should look for. To say that there is no such thing as too much action in Pleasure is ridiculous, and distorts the scope of the class. A Park Harness horse entered in Pleasure should be penalized.

If each class is strict about what is expected, we won't have the "big movers" in with the more traditional Pleasure horses.

Same with Country -- a Pleasure horse (or other unsuitable type) entered in country should be penalized.

This idea of "moving up" or "dropping down" suggests that Pleasure is better than Country, which then is better than Western Country. That is pure BS. It also implies that the registries prize the high stepping and fancy movement over, say, a beautiful long, low movement.

Each division is different, but not better, than any other. Giving each class its own clear goals and not encouraging the idea of "dropping down" will help direct the breed's evolution.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 25, 2010)

hobbyhorse23 said:


> I love Reinsmanship but don't see how it's like Showmanship.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I still think Reinsmanship is like showmanship because isn't showmanship judged on the handlers skill and ability, I also believe its judged on how well the horse is presented.

You are right miniatures are just a height registry, like I've said no better then a color registry IMO. Any horse or pony under 38" can be a miniature. However when they added Park class how many modern shetlands were showing then? Again the route taking by AMHR is going towards ASPC ponies, no longer are they picking your ideal miniature horse.

So why do we need another division for the ASPC ponies when its becoming clear that thats the route is going. Adding a division won't solve anything. First you need to rewrite the rules on the driving classes and then if so needed then add your division.

As far as country horses going into western and winning if our judges are responsible enough they won't let that happen. Our western rules are as detailed as you are going to get. Unfortunatly your average country horse may not win at Nationals, so be it. Thats why we have 60+ entries every year at Nationals.


----------



## Sandee (Sep 25, 2010)

For those that want to see what a Park Harness horse looks like just go to facebook and check out Jason Prince's photos of "Beaver" aka RFP Timed to Perfection. He doesn't have up the 2010 National Photos yet but there is one of '08 Nationals where Beav took second. This year this stallion won the Modern Harness Stakes at Congress and the Park Harness Stakes at Nationals. "Beav" belongs to Amy and Melissa Roberts so I can't post the picture here. I saw him drive a Nationals and the boy breaks at or above level. One NICE horse!


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 25, 2010)

Sandee said:


> For those that want to see what a Park Harness horse looks like just go to facebook and check out Jason Prince's photos of "Beaver" aka RFP Timed to Perfection. He doesn't have up the 2010 National Photos yet but there is one of '08 Nationals where Beav took second. This year this stallion won the Modern Harness Stakes at Congress and the Park Harness Stakes at Nationals. "Beav" belongs to Amy and Melissa Roberts so I can't post the picture here. I saw him drive a Nationals and the boy breaks at or above level. One NICE horse!


Now that is a park horse. Now can anyone prove to me that a average miniature can move like that, no.


----------



## disneyhorse (Sep 25, 2010)

JMS Miniatures said:


> Now that is a park horse. Now can anyone prove to me that a average miniature can move like that, no.


I don't believe that National Grand Champion (or National Champions or in lots of cases, National Top Ten)horses SHOULD be the "average miniature horse." They should be the TOP of the nation at the time, for "average" breeders to strive for. Very few will achieve that goal, that's why the titles are so prestigious.

I am also willing to bet the "average" miniature horse could NOT compete with the National Grand Champion halter horse, either! Those horses are just plain gorgeous!

Andrea


----------



## midnight star stables (Sep 25, 2010)

disneyhorse said:


> I don't believe that National Grand Champion (or National Champions or in lots of cases, National Top Ten)horses SHOULD be the "average miniature horse." They should be the TOP of the nation at the time, for "average" breeders to strive for. Very few will achieve that goal, that's why the titles are so prestigious.
> 
> I am also willing to bet the "average" miniature horse could NOT compete with the National Grand Champion halter horse, either! Those horses are just plain gorgeous!
> 
> Andrea









I too know of some STUNNING horses, be they halter horses or driving horses, and the are simply not the normal, average horse. They are breathtaking and most are National champions and HOF, often proving that is what puts them so much above the rest.





Although I am still for being stricter with the rules and changing the "Park" class - To make it more of a level playing field for the "average" horse and "the little guy" owner/trainer".


----------



## ruffian (Sep 25, 2010)

Having to "qualify" in the class you are showing in is already enforced in AMHA. I would love to see this happen in AMHR. So if you want to show in Pleasure at Nationals, you have to qualify for it at local shows, etc. I think this is an excellent Idea that AMHR should adapt.

" don't believe that National Grand Champion (or National Champions or in lots of cases, National Top Ten)horses SHOULD be the "average miniature horse." They should be the TOP of the nation at the time, for "average" breeders to strive for. Very few will achieve that goal, that's why the titles are so prestigious.

I am also willing to bet the "average" miniature horse could NOT compete with the National Grand Champion halter horse, either! Those horses are just plain gorgeous!'

Yes, but ponies that don't meet the standard (yes there IS a standard for a miniature horse) for a miniature horse should not be the ones that are being placed as the ideal to strive for. A shetland, even if it IS 38" or under, is not the standard of a miniature horse and IMO should not be placed as a AMHR National Champion. That's what Congress is for.

I love the looks of shetlands. But why not change ASPC and split sizes instead of pushing them into AMHR? Jason's ponies are beautiful, and incredible movers, but they are Shetlands.


----------



## kaykay (Sep 25, 2010)

> Having to "qualify" in the class you are showing in is already enforced in AMHA. I would love to see this happen in AMHR. So if you want to show in Pleasure at Nationals, you have to qualify for it at local shows, etc. I think this is an excellent Idea that AMHR should adapt.


AMHA and AMHR are different. I dont want them to be the same. You do have to qualify for AMHR Nationals albeit not as strictly as AMHA. But the flip side of that is AMHR Nationals is huge especially compared to AMHA. This is why AMHA has the reputation of being for the rich and "elite" Where AMHR has always been for anyone that cares enough to take the time to get their horse ready and show it.

Even without the stricter qualifying the horses are stunning and the cream of the crop.



> Yes, but ponies that don't meet the standard (yes there IS a standard for a miniature horse) for a miniature horse should not be the ones that are being placed as the ideal to strive for. A shetland, even if it IS 38" or under, is not the standard of a miniature horse and IMO should not be placed as a AMHR National Champion. That's what Congress is for.


I just dont understand how you can make a statement like that? I just went and reread the standard for the millionth time and I do believe my ASPC/AMHR horses meet the standard. Both of these girls have been shown against some really tough competition and held their own so the judges thought they met the standard?

What are you seeing that makes them violate the standard?


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 25, 2010)

Ok perhaps I should have wrote my words better. What I meant by average I'm talking about your AMHR mini, not your AMHR/ASPC mini shetland.

I totally agree with Ruffian's post.


----------



## Minimor (Sep 25, 2010)

Kay, I'd like to know that too. What is there in the AMHR standard that eliminates the ASPC/AMHR horses for some people? Nothing that I can see. Someone should point out exactly which of the standards it is that the ASPC/AMHR horses don't meet?

People complain about the big moving horses, and yet supposedly people do like well conformed horses? I've been questioning this since this particular thread has been going. If the goal is to have a long, well laid back shoulder (or as it is worded in the standard of perfection: long, sloping and well-angulated) and a long hip....both of which are considered good things to have on a well conformed horse...you are going to start having bigger moving horses just because of those particular conformation traits. If people don't want big moving then I guess they're okay with having straighter shoulders and shorter, weaker hips as well, just to make sure that they don't end up with a big moving horse?



> Now that is a park horse. Now can anyone prove to me that a average miniature can move like that, no.


 No, the average miniature can't move like that, and that's why I say that the average miniature doesn't belong in the park class. A good many of the big moving Pleasure horses being complained about in this thread cannot move like that, nor do they have the presence and animation that this horse has...and IMO if they don't have that kind of movement, presence and animation they are Pleasure horses, not Park horses. Likewise I suggest that a great many of the horses showing in Pleasure are actually Country Pleasure and should be showing as such.


----------



## Shelley (Sep 25, 2010)

The AMHR Rulebook states on page 252, regarding the Country Pleasure Driving division:

"Excessive knee action and speed shall be penalized."

Perhaps if the Pleasure horses that are being dropped down into Country Pleasure at Nationals

were penalized, then the proper horses could again be rewarded in their correct divisions.

Our true Country Pleasure horses cannot be dropped to Western because they do not have Western

Country Pleasure headsets. Yet they cannot compete with a Pleasure horse's action.

Bob is correct...with the Pleasure horses being rewarded in Country, that leave no place

for the true Country horses to compete.

Shelley


----------



## Minimor (Sep 25, 2010)

What precisely is “excessive” knee action??

The term means different things to different people—so what one person complains is excessive another may see as being just right. Some think that any lift to the knees is excessive, others figure that as long as the forearm is just a little below level it is okay.


----------



## ruffian (Sep 26, 2010)

Shelley said:


> The AMHR Rulebook states on page 252, regarding the Country Pleasure Driving division:
> 
> "Excessive knee action and speed shall be penalized."
> 
> ...



YES!!


----------



## alphahorses (Sep 26, 2010)

Sanny said:


> Andrea (Disneyhorse) also makes an excellent point in that the breed is simply evolving and changing and most people that drive these days do want a horse with more action and movement. That sort of horse also is going to usually stand out in the show ring and catch the eye of the judges. I know how much fun it is to drive a horse like Zeb myself and how much I enjoy watching others drive him and I'd like more horses like him with his movement, talent, heart and personality.


I agree. Our goal should not just be for our horses to LOOK like miniature versions of their full-size cousins, but to MOVE like them as well. Anyone who has watched a dressage or hunter class can tell you that most minis are painfully short strided. Some of my friends with full size horses watched some of Nationals and asked my why people show minis who "pitter pat" when they move. Made me cringe, but in many cases, they were right.



The horses that didn't move short, really stood out. And there were very few that came anywhere close to moving like a full size horse - and they were consistantly pinned.

Long strided (not high) free moving motion should be our goal in the Pleasure division. As someone already said, there are already country and western pleasure divisions for shorter strided horses. And yes, the horse that break level should be in park. But I saw almost none of them, and I watched most of the driving classes.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 26, 2010)

Your right those pleasure horses really do move out, thats why I think they are doing so well in roadster as well. Thats why they cannot go into Park. It was explained to me for in Park class its all up and down motion, they don't necessarilly go anywhere. I guess maybe thats why they don't have extended trot. Those pleasure horses do go somewhere. I still personally don't see adding a division is going to help. I honestly think those country horses cannot go much higher knee action then they are now. Fix the rules, show us what you want for country. Cause honestly country can be pretty much anything right now.

I am going to try my hardest to go to Convention this year. Too many improtant proposals are going to be voted on without getting the voice from its members. If I'm able to go I will not vote for this.


----------



## Mominis (Sep 26, 2010)

midnight star stables said:


> I know park harness allows both viceroy carts and 2-wheel carts; however, it is very uncommon to see a 2-wheeled cart used. Now IMO, it does take away from the whole picture, but to be honest, if I had a horse with movement that could go pleasure or park, I would still enter the park class, as having a park harness horse is a personal goal. Park classes also ONLY offer open and stake classes. I think offering the extra classes, such as ladies, youth, amateur and gentlemen driving, are also important.
> 
> I think that the rules about Park should be changed. I think that the class should push the use of 2-wheel carts over that of viceroy. Why? Because that is the only real difference in the class. I know I wouldn't be able to bring both a viceroy and my grabber to every show, as I just don't have the room. I know I am not the only one. I know that I always show my driving horses in either a ladies class or a amateur class as well as open and stakes. Park harness classes don't allow for this.
> 
> ...



I agree entirely with the change of vehicle. I know that, should either of my boys end up moving big enough with enough attitude to go into park that the viceroy would be a stumbling block for us. I just don't have that kind of money, to be honest.



hobbyhorse23 said:


> Is it just me or isn't any ASPC or AMHA horse under 38" eligible for registration with AMHR and therefore a "miniature horse" by default? Despite closing the books we are not yet a BREED. Bloodlines do not matter. Only size and eligibility matter, and therefore, like it or not, an undersized Modern Shetland is every bit as much a miniature horse as one from 30 years of AMHA breeding. That's just the way it is! I am one who prefers a different type of mover in my own barn and want to see there remain a place for that sort of horse, but see below for a further discussion of doing that.
> 
> Leia



This is kind of a confusing point to me too. I'm glad you brought it up.



kaykay said:


> I just dont understand how you can make a statement like that? I just went and reread the standard for the millionth time and I do believe my ASPC/AMHR horses meet the standard. Both of these girls have been shown against some really tough competition and held their own so the judges thought they met the standard?
> 
> What are you seeing that makes them violate the standard?



Good post, Kay. And nice horses too!!



Minimor said:


> What precisely is “excessive” knee action??
> 
> The term means different things to different people—so what one person complains is excessive another may see as being just right. Some think that any lift to the knees is excessive, others figure that as long as the forearm is just a little below level it is okay.


I would like to know how this is defined too. I read some complaints about a particular country class that was discussed on the forums and I honestly didn't see a horse in there that I wouldn't have thought should have gone in the class. I agree that clarification is needed.

This thread is very educational to me with an up and coming driving horse for next year. It seems to be a productive discussion with no bashing. That is also very refreshing. Thanks to you guys who have been in the AMHR horses for a long time for sharing your knowledge with newbies like me. It is really helpful.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 26, 2010)

Honestly what is the standard of a miniature horse? None. As long as you have a good horse thats under 38" then your a miniature. There really is no standard and perhaps it is time for AMHR to make it more clearer. I know people have said there is but there isn't. Read the rulebook, tell me what kind of horse is it describing?

This whole post is screaming evolution, evolution, breeding for better. We were screaming when shetlands were winning in halter, now we are doing it in driving. Honestly this is the route AMHR is taking. Those ponies are good, their is no question about it. If you have a mini that was winning 3 years ago but can't win this year, well they are just brining in something thats a lil better then yours. Thats all it is too it. Honestly Pleasure it can get better. But what needs to happen is to make it more detailed like they did for the western for country class, cause I agree its not going to get any better for country. Their are alot of country horses out there, they really are, and maybe they can do well locally but maybe not Nationally, well thats part of the game.

I am curious afterall none of us has asked how is this proposal written? How is it going to keep these big-moving minis out of pleasure?


----------



## ruffian (Sep 26, 2010)

There most certainly IS a Standard of Perfection. There is also one for Modern Shetland Classic Shetland. If you read the SOP, you will see there are CLEAR differences, mostly between the Modern and Mini.

The SOP for the Miniature is very abbreviated compared especially to the Modern one, but there are differences. Most important to me is not even addressed in the Modern SOP - MINIATURE HORSE GENERAL IMPRESSION - THE DISPOSITION SHOULD BE EAGER AND FRIENDLY, NOT SKITTISH.

SOP - MODERN SHETLAND - "Ladies, Amatuer, and children's ponies in harness SHOULD stand quietly and back readily." I don't want a miniature of any sex or in an performance division that I would not put my grandson on or behind.


----------



## Minimor (Sep 26, 2010)

I'm not sure what the Modern Shetland Standard of Perfection has to do with a pony being

'wrong' for the Miniature standard of perfection ? A Modern pony may very well fit into that definition of being eager and friendly, not skittish. Just because it is a Modern doesn't make it skittish or not friendly.

And I think that wording about harness ponies standing quietly and backing readily is taken from one of the class descriptions, not the actual Modern standard of perfection? The Mini class description appears to be worded "must stand quietly and rein back". So, Minis must rein back, but not necessarily "readily"???

I prefer to drive Minis (and remember that none of my Minis are Shetlands, they don't even have Shetlands on their papers) that are not suitable for anyone's grandchildren (young ones at least) to drive. That is strictly a choice thing, it's not in the Mini standard of perfection.


----------



## midnight star stables (Sep 26, 2010)

ruffian said:


> There most certainly IS a Standard of Perfection. There is also one for Modern Shetland Classic Shetland. If you read the SOP, you will see there are CLEAR differences, mostly between the Modern and Mini.
> 
> The SOP for the Miniature is very abbreviated compared especially to the Modern one, but there are differences. Most important to me is not even addressed in the Modern SOP - MINIATURE HORSE GENERAL IMPRESSION - THE DISPOSITION SHOULD BE EAGER AND FRIENDLY, NOT SKITTISH.
> 
> SOP - MODERN SHETLAND - "Ladies, Amatuer, and children's ponies in harness SHOULD stand quietly and back readily." I don't want a miniature of any sex or in an performance division that I would not put my grandson on or behind.


I sure hope I never have any of those evil ponies in my barn. Oh wait, I want a Modern. I guess ALL moderns are deadly and I'll never ever find a safe one.

I'm sorry, but I find this post just plain mean to PONIES. I have seen several AMHA miniatures that I would never trust with a child. I have also seen many children with ASPC ponies, including Moderns. Is this every horse? No. It will never be either. But I have to say that I have seen all sides to this.

I know I have an older gelding who is not safe around children or crowds, as he is easily spooked by fast movements. He bolts when he feels threatened. We still love him and have owned him for years. We don't have issues with him, but warn visitors to be slow and quiet around him. Our bombproof horse on the farm is our stallion - hormones and all. Do we give him to children to play with? No, but I wouldn't bat an eyelash if children were with him.

Every HORSE is different. Just because it is a breed, it doesn't guarantee any temperament. Owners and trainers also add much to a horse's personality.

I truly hate the "us" vs "them" post. And I agree with Holly again. Ruffian, I'm not sure why you dislike ponies so, but it is clear from many of your posts.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 26, 2010)

As I have always said in my posts that in general ponies are more hot blooded. However they make wonderful kids mounts and with the right training they can be lovely ponies.

I have also seen some nasty miniatures so I think it goes with any breed they are not all the same.


----------



## muffntuf (Sep 26, 2010)

The Standard of Perfection, if you read each division of the rulebook, is almost cut and paste.


----------



## ruffian (Sep 26, 2010)

"And I think that wording about harness ponies standing quietly and backing readily is taken from one of the class descriptions, not the actual Modern standard of perfection? The Mini class description appears to be worded "must stand quietly and rein back". So, Minis must rein back, but not necessarily "readily"???

You're right, my mistake, This was taken from the Part 4 - Manners, of the Modern Pony Section VII, page 115, which immediately follows the SOP.

However, the SOP for the Modern pony covers 3 1/2 pages, and describes in detail, as it should, each aspect of the Modern Shetland pony. The Classic Pony SOP is 4 1/2 pages. The Standard for the miniature horse for AMHR is 1 1/2 page.

I do like the Modern Shetland pony. I love to watch them perform. They are amazing and athletic. I just don't want them in my barn. Yes, I've owned a couple. I've been around a lot of them. I don't want them in my show arena with my miniature horses, who've I've spent the last 30 years getting them to the place they are now.

I apologize for offending anybody with my posts. I'll keep my trap clapped (as much as I can



) on this subject.


----------



## disneyhorse (Sep 26, 2010)

I'm also not sure that everyone is understanding just exactly what a "MODERN SHETLAND" is. Are we talking just any extreme looking Shetland, or actually a MODERN shetland?

So far, very, very few MODERN Shetlands are showing in AMHR. And those I bet are pretty darn prized by their owners and trainers as they are extremely hard to come by. Even "under" ponies at Congress (under 43" tall) are hard enough to come by, much less one that can measure in as a Mini.

I personally would give anything to own a true Modern shetland that could measure in as a Mini. Even though others freak out about them. I think they are just beautiful. Some are as "pretty" as any Classic, but with shoes move impressively. Without shoes, most of them don't move above level and are perfectly suited for a miniature horse class.

Andrea


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Sep 26, 2010)

I was trying to stay out of this topic but I have to say Who knew that when I decided to get into Miniatures many years ago I never thought that the day would come that to be competitive in the pleasure classes a small Hackney would be the way one needed to go.

And that anyone who felt they wanted to keep the Miniatures evolving yes but perhaps not evolving to a smaller version of ASPR would then be considered a pony bashing- uneducated-poor sport- sore loser.

I am in agreement with many both on this forum and those who prefer to stay off topics like this that it is indeed quickly becoming a sad day for many miniature horse enthusiasts..

Not saying that there is anything wrong with the Hackney or ASPC ponies or any other breed. It does not have to be black or white one can very much mourn the loss of what was a flourishing and popular breed without hating the breed it is now trying to become

For those that want to continue to say even though I own ASPC ponies Hackney bred at that I am truly a pony hating- ASPC bashing- sore loser so be it. Glad I have become such a focus in your lives never thought I was that interesting personally but hey nice to be noticed right






*I can very easily love my ASPC ponies and not love the direction AMHR is headed.* Just like I can easily love a friend with different opinions or love both my kids who are very very different from eachother. I am not sure why that is such a difficult concept for some to understand but not my job to make them understand it. Nor do I need to defend the love I have for my ponies and all the divisons of AMHR/ ASPC to anyone who doesn't agree with me.


----------



## horsefeather (Sep 26, 2010)

Lisa,

I understand where you are coming from and agree with you.

Pam


----------



## Minimor (Sep 26, 2010)

Lisa, I am surprised to hear you complain about Hackney breeding coming into AMHR considering that you have an AMHR mare that is 1/4 Hackney?

I am not sure why it is okay for people to bash the Shetlands coming into AMHR but it is not okay for others to defend those Shetlands that fit into AMHR? It is your right to believe, and say, that the Shetlands are ruining AMHR just as it is our right to believe, and say, that the Shetlands are not ruining AMHR.

I am also not sure where all these Hackneys are that some say are in AMHR already, apparently flooding all the Pleasure classes at Nationals. I've looked through a bunch of the photos from those classes & sure am not seeing classes full of Hackneys. Shetlands, yes, but not obvious Hackneys...put those photos up against photos from a Hackney show and there is a very obvious difference!


----------



## dannigirl (Sep 26, 2010)

I find this whole thread amusing. We have raised minis here for more than 10 years. It didn't take us long to know that we like the over or "B" mini. We raised them because we like showing them. We now also have Foundation ASPC double registered minis. We have often been asked if our mini-only horses were shetlands as they looked like shetlands and when looking at my herd, it truly is hard to tell which is which in most cases. Granted, a couple are very obviously shetland and some are very obviously mini, but a majority of mine look like they could go either way. I have some very tiny foundation ponies and some very large minis. The hackney is mostly in the moderns. It cannot be in the foundation pony. I do show my foundations as both foundation/classic shetlands and then as AMHR over and sometimes under minis. I will take most of the herd I take to Congress to Nationals--with a few added minis and maybe minus one shetland that is over 38". As for driving, my 35.5" shetland showed in open pleasure at nationals and was not nearly as high stepping or high headed as he needed to be to compete against the minis this year.


----------



## ownedbyapony (Sep 26, 2010)

IMO the Park moving horses in Pleasure need to be penalized. I went to a judges seminar, and asked why horses with excessive movement aren't being marked down, I was told BY JUDGES AND FUTURE JUDGES that there is no such thing as excessive movement in Pleasure. So until the JUDGES are being trained on what to look for in the Miniature Horse Pleasure class, might as well save our breath.

Ruffian,

I think once again I am going to have to explain my comments at the judges clinic. I responded to your post in February and will once again state my position.

The AMHR rule book does not dictate penalization of excessive motion in an open pleasure class. I have copied the class procedures below:

a. Walk: A free, regular and forward moving 4-

beat gait. The horse should walk energetically,

but calmly, with even and determined pace.

b. Pleasure Trot: The horse should maintain

forward impulsion while showing submission

to the bit. The trot is slower and more collected,

but the horse should indicate willingness to be

driven on the bit while maintaining a steady

cadence.

c. Extended Trot: This is a clear, but not

excessive, increase in gait and length of stride.

The horse goes forward freely, engaging the

hind legs with good hock action, on a taut but

light rein, the position balanced and

unconstrained

When the association dictates that excessive motion will be penalized, I will do so when I judge and you better bet that it will be presented as so at the judges clinics. Until that time I will judge by the rule book. If you had one of those excessive moving horses and were in a class where you were clearly the winner, how would you like to hear from a judge that you were penalized for excessive motion when there was no rule in place. Put the rule in place and I will follow it to the best of my ability.

Amber Montgomery


----------



## Belinda (Sep 26, 2010)

All I can say Miss ownedbyapony is























and you must have your



ON !!! LOL !!


----------



## Sanny (Sep 27, 2010)

ownedbyapony said:


> IMO the Park moving horses in Pleasure need to be penalized. I went to a judges seminar, and asked why horses with excessive movement aren't being marked down, I was told BY JUDGES AND FUTURE JUDGES that there is no such thing as excessive movement in Pleasure. So until the JUDGES are being trained on what to look for in the Miniature Horse Pleasure class, might as well save our breath.





> Ruffian,
> I think once again I am going to have to explain my comments at the judges clinic. I responded to your post in February and will once again state my position.
> 
> The AMHR rule book does not dictate penalization of excessive motion in an open pleasure class. I have copied the class procedures below:
> ...


I've read post after post of people over the past few months complaining about "high-steppers" or "hackney-types" in the pleasure classes with excessive action and many people have criticized the judging or the judges for not penalizing those horses. I've pretty much stayed out of it and I do read and refer to our rulebook frequently myself but I guess it didn't hit home for me that the rulebook DOES NOT STATE that those horses should be penalized for excessive action until Amber (WHO WAS A NATIONALS JUDGE THIS YEAR) posted this.

It must be incredibly frustrating for carded judges to be criticized for their judging when they are doing the best that they can to follow instruction given at judges clinics and what is written as guidelines within the rulebook. I've also heard judges defending their pick in the show ring when asked why they picked a particular horse is because "it was the best horse in the class" not that they chose it because it had the most movement.

Related to the changes happening in the show ring and in the pleasure type horses that has triggered these discussions....the miniature horse is a height breed and it is difficult to have specific breed standards when for years/decades the criteria for the breede has been height-based. Until just few years ago you could hardship into AMHR any horse that fit the height requirement whether that horse was an appaloosa, a paint, a draft horse, a quarter horse, an arabian, a hackney, a thoroughbred....whatever. Shrink all of those different breeds down into the height requirement and you will see horses of all different shapes, sizes, colors and will see all different sorts of movement and personalities and like it or not they are going to be judged against each other and if you are showing horses you probably going to choose to lean toward owning and showing horses that are going to win in the show ring. Does anyone go horse shopping for or advertise for a horse that will get the gate at every show? NO. We are all looking for that special horse that has the talent, athleticism, personality, attitude and MOVEMENT that will win in the ring. Why else do people want to see pictures and/or video of a horse moving when they are looking to buy. It isn't because they are worried that the horse might have EXCESSIVE MOVEMENT.

We've got a wide variety of shapes, colors and types of minis/ponies in our own pasture here and they each have their own niche that they can excel at whether it is western country pleasure, country pleasure or pleasure. We even have a couple we've decided don't really fit well into ANY of the driving classes but they excel at obstacle and jumping so still have a role. We find their niche and they all have a job. We do have some "tweeners" that now fall somewhere in between types that I worry about but I will be working and driving them more during the off-season to try and get them to fit into a more clearly defined category.

Another thing for those that are mourning the loss of the "true mini" and sad about the changes happening to the breed. We have no stallions and we don't breed ourselves but I do watch the industry closely. We also go to a lot of local horse sales and see a lot of horses being bred over and over that I'd consider "old-style" minis. Small, short legs, long bodies, stocky build....they keep being bred and yet they really don't fit into what is winning now in the show ring so I guess they become "pet quality" and they end up selling at auctions sometimes for $50. I hear lots of criticism toward people that are choosing to change their breeding programs and choosing to breed for more refinement and more movement and they have minis that are going into the show ring and winning and their horses from their farm are selling for thousands instead of $50-$75. Erica is a good example of someone that is putting a lot of time, effort and thought into her breeding program and it is working for her. Put a horse from Erica next to a horse from a farm clinging to and breeding for the "old-style" mini and you will probably be looking at two very different type/style of horse.

Another thing is I even hear talked about and read about here on the forum is people criticizing others for bringing (GASP) that horrible "pony blood" into minis. Isn't a pony any horse under 14.2 and a mini any horse under 38"? If a mini measures out and goes over 38" doesn't he become a pony regardless of the blood flowing in his veins?

Didn't mean to rant about this but I've been sitting back and reading a lot and watching discussions without weighing in and finally decided to speak up about it and share my personal thoughts.

I know that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that it is right for people to stand up for what they believe in, I just feel like these topics have really been beat to death. The same discussions keep coming up over and over and I hope that at convention the topics will be discussed and laid to rest so everybody can move on.

For those that feel strongly for or against some of this I hope to see you at Convention voicing your opinions and standing up for your beliefs.

It will make for some good discussions and lively meetings.


----------



## disneyhorse (Sep 27, 2010)

Yay Amber/Sanny, what a great post!





"Excessive" has a wide interpretation. I would take it to mean "above level" as "level" is often a term used with the Shetlands, since some can go level or above and most can't. But the Rulebook does not specifically state.

Andrea


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Sep 27, 2010)

I 100% agree to Lisa's post. I know that others on here don't, and I'm sorry.

I just think its odd when people wanted the shetlands mixing in with the minis did people not realize this was going to happen? Their is no need for a seperate division afterall they are all miniatures, and their is no rule currently in pleasure that states excessive knee action to be penalized. So before a new division can be placed you need to change the rule for pleasure. Also it needs to be done anyways they need to really work on guidelines for country like they were able to for western.

This convention I feel is really going to turn heads. Which is why I have decided to attend atleast the miniature portion. That means once I get out of school at 10 pm I drive almost 5 hours to Little Rock and get some little sleep and drive all the way back after the meeting to attend class at 5:30. But I guess that will prove how much I do care about this registry.


----------



## RhineStone (Sep 27, 2010)

Sanny said:


> Another thing is I even hear talked about and read about here on the forum is *people criticizing others for bringing (GASP) that horrible "pony blood" into minis*. Isn't a pony any horse under 14.2 and a mini any horse under 38"? If a mini measures out and goes over 38" doesn't he become a pony regardless of the blood flowing in his veins?


I have spent a little time on allbreedpedigree.com. Plug in a Miniature's name and see what comes up. If the horse has a pedigree that is beyond the last few generations, it will more than likely go back to registered Shetlands. My guess is that those horses that seem to "come out of nowhere" are also out of registered Shetlands or unregistered (read "not kept up") Shetland stock. Buckeroo - Shetland, Rowdy - Shetland, etc. Crossing "true miniatures" back with Shetlands is like crossing a Polled Hereford with a horned one. It's really the same breed. Yes, there is probably a rare few that have "something else" mixed in there, but come on....let's face it, it is a Shetland for the most part. It has just "evolved" as people have said here.

Do you really think that the present Arabian is just like the Arabian of the past...no way! How about the QH? You might as well put WP bloodlines in a different registry from the HUS lines from the Performance horse (reining, cutting) bloodlines! It's still the same breed but they are SO different! Western Pleasure horses have been bred to roll peanuts and go slow! More than likely you couldn't cut a cow or go over a jump with a WP-bred horse if you wanted to!

Just the same, as has been said, minis _can_ and _have_ "developed" into different breed types. I have them in my barn. Some are more low and long and other are more upheaded and ambitious! Why is one better than the other? Instead of focusing on "true miniature" style, why don't we focus on horses that are well-conformed and can move well, not "pitter-pattering", but with actual fluidity and round reach with natural knee action! Horses that can halter _AND_ perform! Horses that are built "uphill" instead of "downhill", so they can track up and have endurance. (Little Dutch Warmbloods would be wonderful!



)

I have a mini gelding that is fluid and round. His dam is out of unregistered stock. My guess?....Shetland. Do I care? Not a bit. He can move and has been a GREAT ambassador for the mini breed. We only show ADS shows where there are all sorts of breeds shown together, Arabs, Saddlebreds, Fjords, Haflingers, QH, Morgans, drafts, etc. The judge has to pick from all these types. A good moving horse is a good moving horse, no matter what the breed or type. When some very "big horse" people watch my gelding move, they are amazed. I have had _numerous_ people come up to me and say, "I don't normally like minis, but I like _this_ miniature." Why do they tell me that? Because he can move. He doesn't pitter-patter! In pleasure classes against big horses, he is _always_ in the upper ribbons!

We don't breed, so I urge you breeders to focus on horses that can _move_. They can move high or low, but with roundness, fluidity, and ability to reach forward. That will do more for the promotion of the breed than anything, regardless as to whether or not you split the "big moving" horses in the driving classes.


----------



## tagalong (Sep 27, 2010)

> This is why AMHA has the reputation of being for the rich and "elite"


You know, the only time I have ever heard that "reputation" is on this forum.



Whenever I was there, it was not comprised of the "rich and elite"...

And a lot of the same horses and trainers would also show at Nationals....



...and still do!

I see nothing wrong with qualifying for specific classes._ And the classes you qualify in should be the ones you compete in at Nationals._ Nationals will always be bigger than Worlds becuase you have an entire extra size division so I am never sure why people insist on comparing the two shows that way or in any way. Why not just enjoy them both?

Years ago, when you did not have to qualify for Nationals in any way - there were many disgruntled people who showed there and then complained that it was all politics etc. - when the difference bewteen their horse and the one that won the class was night and day. That always made me a bit sad. They felt that only the "rich and elite" could win... when actually it was those who were the most qualified in whatever class it was who usually won.

I think there will always be some crossing over and a fuzzy area for some horses in all the driving divisions.

As far as shoes for minins - I have seen them used many times for training and practice between shows... and then they were pulled before the actual show. So yes - even in minis, shoes are a training device...

FTR - I have *never* worked with a trainer who withheld water to get halter horses to tuck up... or tied their heads high to "build muscle". That last one does not even make sense - you would only build up the muscles on the bottom of the neck instead of the topline and that would be completely counterproductive - and pointless.


----------



## disneyhorse (Sep 27, 2010)

tagalong said:


> As far as shoes for minins - I have seen them used many times for training and practice between shows... and then they were pulled before the actual show. So yes - even in minis, shoes are a training device...
> 
> FTR - I have *never* worked with a trainer who withheld water to get halter horses to tuck up... or tied their heads high to "build muscle". That last one does not even make sense - you would only build up the muscles on the bottom of the neck instead of the topline and that would be completely counterproductive - and pointless.


In my experience, withholding water and tying up heads high is WAY WAY more common than people shoeing their minis for action.

The tying up of heads is fairly uncommon... and just to note withholding of food and water is only for a few hours before the halter class, not for any extended amount of time in most cases... and withholding food also makes the horse more interested in "bait" during the class as well.

Andrea


----------



## drivinghoss (Sep 27, 2010)

Actually shoes help some minis because the ground where some people drive their horses is very rough and hard on the horses' feet.

If you could show minis with shoes there would be less of them lame at the end of the show because the arenas are so hard.

And why not let them show with shoes and keep the height the same. Then the littler horses would have an advantage over the 38" horse


----------



## ruffian (Sep 27, 2010)

miniatures are not be shod for various reasons, one of the biggest reason is that the miniature horse is not supposed to have artifical movement, and shoes can impact movement greatly. When AMHA and AMHR were created it was decided by those creating the registries to make this completely separate from the pony world. Thus no shoes. If 30 years of having miniatures, I've had one horse come up lame from a stone bruise. That lasted less than 1 day. IMO Miniatures don't need to be shod, and should not be shod.


----------



## Minimor (Sep 27, 2010)

Oh no, not shoes on Minis. If people complain now about too much movement, imagine what they'd have to say about things if some of the Minis started wearing shoes in the show ring!!



I'd like to see the Minis left as natural as possible.


----------



## Georgia (Sep 28, 2010)

Just for the record I don't show. I just enjoy my 2 minis. But I am concerned about the breed in that I've seen what has happen in the quarter horse breed with the breeding in of the throughbred. My daughter has shown quarter horses for years and I watched the hunter under saddle horses get bigger and lankier. A lot are more (15/16) than quarter to the point that you have to go way back to find a true quarter horse in their bloodlines. To me this is not a quarter horse. The same can happen to the true mini. How soon will it be that the mini will be more Shetland than True mini. I agree that change is good, But how far do you go. A mini that is 7/8 or more Shetland is that a true Mini or a small shetland. Both breeds have there place. Are we ready to totally redefine the breed. I not saying that a little shetland blood is bad, but how much is too much. This is just my opinion and I know that most people will disagree with it and tell me to stay out of it, but we can learn by other breeds mistakes.


----------

