# Anyone else get an email from Martha Hickham



## Karin - NaKar Miniatures (Oct 31, 2007)

I just received an email from Martha Hickham concerning a letter written by Ed Sisk. I can't seem to copy it so that I can post it here.

"This letter was sent to me, with the request that it be passed on to as many concerned AMHA members as possible. After reading this letter, should you feel it necessary to pass it on to other members, please do so.

Thanks,

Martha Hickham

El Rancho Loco "

Did anyone else get this email? Maybe someone with more computer knowledge than me can post it.


----------



## Al B (Oct 31, 2007)

I got it. It appears to be a fax image and you have to have a fax print capability.


----------



## Shaladar (Oct 31, 2007)

I got it a while back....I just tested copy & paste, and it worked.

Should I post it here?

Sue

edited to add: It's one thing to get it in a e-mail and be told to send it to everyone, it's another to post it on a public board. Don't want to ruffle any feathers.


----------



## Vertical Limit (Oct 31, 2007)

Well if the letter is supposed to be passed on to as many AMHA members as possible I don't see why it can't be pasted here. Have at it. There are enough "feathers" flying around as it is. A few more won't hurt!





If it isn't "appropriate" we can always remove it......


----------



## Shaladar (Oct 31, 2007)

This is the letter I received:

************************

Dear AMHA Members,

It is sad that we have to start a common letter of interest with a disclosure but here we go. The following statement and thoughts are strictly my opinion and as I see things that are happening in the AMHA today.

As many of you know, I am a big advocate on measuring our horses correctly. Our existence in the equine world is based on being known as a breed of horse that measures 34" and under. If you read our rule book and the articles of incorporation, it is plain to see that the forefathers of this association declared that an AMERICAN MINIATURE HORSE is 34" and under. This is what sets us apart from other registries and helps produce a market for legitimate Miniature Horses. It also helps to ensure higher prices when it come to supply and demand. We all know that a smaller supply creates a larger demand and that is what forces a thriving market. Our official rule book outlines very clearly the procedure on how each horse is to be measured. It is not rocket science nor is it brain surgery. It is called common sense, integrity and most of all, morality.

If you were at the 2007 world show, you had the chance to witness the rape and pillage of AMHA rules and the total disrespect of our association and its honest members. Measuring, not only at this world show, and many before it has gone totally to a criminal level. I, myself protested three horses that I new were in violation of the measuring rule. Two of the horses were entered in the 32" and under class and I knew that they both were past champions in the 32"- 34" class in previous years. One of the horses is listed at 33" on his permanent papers which you can view on the AMHA stud book When they were remeasured by the protest committee, one was 33 1/2" and the other was 33 3/4" and I repeat, they were both entered and measured in the 32 and under class.

. Lets now stop and look at where the problem is. Everyone’s first thoughts are that it is the handler that is cheating the horses into the wrong class, darn them trainers. Well, that is part of the equation, but it is not the most important one. This falls back on our, and I stress the point OUR association. It starts with the leadership, the management and the person doing the measuring. They are allowing this to go on. It all boils down to money and numbers! The more illegitimate horses that show, the more money the association makes. The bigger number of horses that show, keeps us in the contest with the AMHR. What our leadership is not looking at is, by letting these oversize horses illegally compete at our World Show, we are ticking off our legitimate breeder / exhibitor and they are not coming back until this issue is solved. We can look back over the past years and count the number of oversized horses that are representing our breed as champions. They are imposters, They should never have had the honor to show at the World show. By allowing these horses to show, they just cheated a legitimate horse and his owner, out of maybe one of the greatest moments in their horse experience. It is criminal, immoral and bratizes the integrity of OUR AMHA! If the person in charge of measuring our horses at the World show is off by 1 3/4", then that person has no right to measure at all. A blind person could get closer than that. I do not know if this person was instructed to be lenient and not to measure any horse out or if she thinks she is doing everyone a favor by letting them all show. This method is totally destructive to the future of our association and it has to stop!

It is up to us, as members to insist that the measuring of our horses be done by the book and that it doesn’t matter who you are, we will all be treated equal. As it is right now, there are some of our board members that are the biggest violators. They are using their high position to get favors, I think that is illegal. If not, it should be. They are suppose to lead by example. They are to be the ones that we respect for their knowledge and praise for donating their time to make a better AMHA for all of us. I’m not sure how they sleep at night, but it is hard to force someone to have a conscience. Its hard to swallow knowing that a person holding a board position can be a deciding factor in suspending a member for breaking a rule when the board member is just as guilty. Go figure that one out! We need leaders that are held to a higher standard and can be counted on to do the right thing. We have board members that are measuring horses for hardship registration that are either blind or corrupt. They should be held accountable for their actions along with others. It is time to stop hardship in the AMHA. Our supply is now greater than the demand and we know what that does to our market.

Here is another example, I protested a horse that I knew was over 34". I followed the protest procedure and posted my $50.00. The owner and his horse were instructed to appear for measuring by the protest committee. The owner had gotten wind earlier that his horse was going to be protested and told the protest committee that the horse had mysteriously become ill and it was no longer on the grounds and it had been taken home. It is of my knowledge, that the horse never left the grounds other than to be put in a trailer in the camp grounds. Shame on them and shame on the management for not checking to see if the horse truly was sick. What should have happened is that if the horse was not presented for measuring, his papers should have been revoked until he was measured..He wasn’t sick when they measured him at 34" the day before. Again, the system has been cheated and our leadership has allowed it to happen. NEWS FLASH!!!! There was another so called high profile controversial horse that the owner and trainer left unmeasured standing in the stall. I wonder why? Does the word guilty sound familiar. If the shoe fits, wear it.

In the near future you will be hearing about a group of people that are trying to overturn a new rule that has already been voted on and passed by the membership. The new rule states that a horse may be protested at any time up to 2 hours after the show. Our management states that this rule will cause havoc with the show and that it may be abused just to avenge rather than to make things right. I say to our leadership, If you measure our horses correctly the first time, then you will have no problem. The problem is we are not doing it right and that is causing the problem. This new rule is designed to get people to put their horses in the right class and if they are to big, then they should leave them home. The board is going to try and overturn this rule. I have bad news for them, they set a presidence with the futurity committee when they wanted to enhance the futurity with some good ideas. Our legal council advised that what ever the membership has voted for is how it has to be. This rule went through all of the correct channels, it was voted on, passed and now will come into effect on Jan 1 of 08. A large number of people that are against this rule are the violators, there again, go figure.

We should all be for the betterment of our association and it is time to put the violators on notice. As of Jan 1 /08, every show manager should be held liable to measure the horses correctly. They should be held accountable along with our leadership and management. Please help to put us back on a constructive track to better our association. Before long, none of us will be proud of the outcome if we don’t act soon.

Yours respectively

Ed Sisk

AMHA Member 23 years

edited to add the part at the top saying I received this letter.


----------



## Boinky (Oct 31, 2007)

This is something i've been saying for a while now. The measures and the registry in general should be held accountable legally not just a slap on the wrist. I read the mishap about the horse at Worlds. I dont' know which way to go since i don't know the horse BUT obviously that horse had been shown all year to qualify at worlds. He was measured.

Now i'm not really a sue happy person but sometimes a law suit will go a long ways! Quite frankly if the registry and each individual measurer was sued for malpractice when horses are measured wrong i think you'd see the registries changed and the registry imposing large fines for those found not measuring correctly. Right now there is no real consequences for those that do not measure correctly.... and i believe it's a trick down right from the top echelons of the registries.

Now weather the trainers are trying to sneak horses in or not I do not know, BUT when a horse has been hardshipped into the AMHA/AMHR it is measured by an OFFICIAL. When the horse has been shown for a year or more and was measured before each show.. that was measured by an OFFICIAL. that official should be held responsible if it's found that horse is over later on down the line, as well as each measurer that said "yep that horse is under". to ME that is blatant malpractice..no matter WHY they are doing it (favors or whatnot).

People obviously aren't fed up enough because as far as i know nothing has been done LEGALLY to try to get this problem changed.


----------



## Katiean (Oct 31, 2007)

I agree that a horse over 34"should not have it's papers. When we hardshipped our mare and had her measured As we were on our way to my house from the show grounds the person doing the measuring inspection said to me "Now she isn't a glorified 34" is she?" I told him no she was dead on 34" not over at all. He was very diligent in the measuring. At that show which was a Regional show, I saw some of the measuring. Someone was trying to get their horse into a smaller class than the horse actually was. The horse was 1/4" over. They would take the horse away and I guess take as much as they could off the feet. But at the end of it all the horse was over and not allowed to show in the smaller class. I was impressed by the honesty of the person doing the measuring. Now mind you, I did not watch all of the measuring. I don't know for a fact a friend wasn't let through. But, I don't think so. I do believe what was mentioned in the letter does happen and it shouldn't.


----------



## Margo_C-T (Oct 31, 2007)

As someone who has seen this happening for YEARS now at Nationals and otherwise, and getting worse and worse(meaning that taller and taller horses were being allowed to show, and 'official' measurements being further and further off-meaning shorter and shorter--my supreme disgust was a BIG reason why I quit going to Nationals---I have to say GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!!!

Margo


----------



## CLC Stables (Oct 31, 2007)

WITHERS??????????????????? Has anyone ever heard of those??? WAY LESS SUBJECTIVE.


----------



## bevann (Oct 31, 2007)

A possible solution to the measuring problem might be to have an outside company do the measuring.Their officials would have to be trained how Miniatures are measured. Have the owner or trainer bring the horse to an official, hand it off and be measured by the designated measuring official and photo or video recorded, record the measurement and return horse to owmer or trainer.owner or trainer must not be present.sort of like going in the voting booth alone.Just a thought-maybe somebody can come up with something better.


----------



## mininik (Oct 31, 2007)

Well, if these Miniature "Horses" were measured like HORSES (at the withers)...





I'd like to know HOW the AMHA is going to hold people accountable? What about subjective things such as a bit of mane clipped too far up, a bit of hoof left on, the horse standing this way or that? What about horses who are measured into a smaller class? Can anyone actually see this going to court?





Regarding that certain high profile stallion, considering the circumstances surrounding that horse being measured, I believe it to be quite brash to simply say, "Guilty," especially when the horse has measured in previously.


----------



## Boinky (Oct 31, 2007)

i agree rob.. measuring at the withers would be a good start..BUT no matter where they measure i still think if they aren't held responsible (and something that will HURT not just some public upset) for their measurements. why SHOULDN'T they take favors and stuff?? it's just a LITTLE unethical.... why not nothing is going to happen to them and they will get lucky in some way! I truly think the registries actually in alot of ways condone this by never taking steps to make it very wrong for a measurer to measure incorrectly (heck for all i know the registries tell them to measure incorrectly..don't know).

honestly YES i could see it going to court and i think there could be a legitimate excuse of malpractice (though i'm certainly not a lawyer). if enough people were upset and pushed the matter. Look at all the other memberships of registries that have changed things in their registry by sueing them or standing up somehow and making it change. It's also not about the minor differnces that sometimes occur. many of these measurements are WAY off not just little.

Granted there IS a bit of subjectiveness the way we measure using the mane. that's why i think it should be changed but even if it's not it would be OBVIOUS with 1.5" differnce in the horses normal measuring. I'm sorry but that's hard to achieve without major shaving or hoof trimming and then i think it's almost impossible. I'm sorry but i can usually tell where a horses mane has been clipped off too unless it's just litterally the last few hairs...

they should be keeping track of measurement cards when situations like this come up. If a horse has been measuring either all over the board.. or consistently at one spot then changes.. warning bells should go off. why else do they bother having measurement cards if they don't keep them on file? a horse that showed last year at 34" shouldn't jump down to 32.


----------



## Shaladar (Oct 31, 2007)

My personal opinion is it is not soley (sp) on the shoulders of the Registries and the Measurers. Measuring is so subjective. How about the OWNERS taking a little responsibility when the horse has shown in a certain height group ALL year, is even on the Honor Roll in that height group.....and them magically shrinks an inch at Nationals/World and measures into a smaller height? How about doing the RIGHT thing and leaving the horse where it belongs....in the taller height class?

Just a thought.

Sue


----------



## Boinky (Oct 31, 2007)

I agree but.. throwing out here as a devils advocate.. why NOT show another division..?? as it stands now the registry allows it and never questions it.... so why not? All parties should be held accountable but i don't see how things are ever going to clean up if the registry itself doens't take steps to clean up it's measurers and question measurements that change drastically.

to me yes i know some horses are right on the boarder and could go either way for certain heights..but we are talking about obviously large changes in heights not just a 1/2-1/4 of an inch. I do NOT think measuring is all that subjective...


----------



## Tony (Oct 31, 2007)

Bravo ED!!!

Since now the measuring is being videotaped and stretching is being called, I noticed a "new" phenomenon. I saw numerous horses being measured while at the World that were with their front legs spred so wide that it was a wonder they could stand. It doesn't show on camera, but I guarantee that a person would NEVER set up the horse in the ring like that. One I saw had almost eighteen inches between his front legs, and it WASN'T because of a big broad chest! It was because a _*cheater*_ was at the lead.


----------



## Boinky (Oct 31, 2007)

well they are only able to cheat in that circumstance BECAUSE someone along the line has allowed it. why didn't the measurer ask them to please stand their horse up correctly? the measurer i'm SURE could probably see that if everyone else did. basically it's allowed and almost encouraged to find new ways to make horses smaller or larger (depending on the circumstances apparently).


----------



## mininik (Oct 31, 2007)

Well that sounds blatantly wrong, Tony. Did you file a protest?


----------



## kaykay (Oct 31, 2007)

The only thing I take issue with is this statement



> This is what sets us apart from other registries and helps produce a market for legitimate Miniature Horses.


I respectfully say that all my Miniature Horses are legitimate wether they be 34 and under or 34-38.

But I have to say this problem was a big reason why I stopped being an AMHA member and will no longer buy AMHA only horses. You simply cannot have a registry that says anything over 34" is not a TRUE Miniature Horse and then name National Champions that are clearly over 34"

Measuring is a huge problem with both registries. I just dont think it will ever be solved


----------



## Teresa (Oct 31, 2007)

I have seen measurements way off several times. I've always wondered what qualifications do the measurers have and if remeasured and found out to be wrong who is held accountable? The second or third show I went to (I wasn't showing yet), I was asked to watch the person measuring to make sure he did it correctly. How could I correct when I didn't know a thing about measuring rules? Do you think that is why I was asked?

One of my friends was in a show this year and she has pictures of a horse that was clearly 2" taller than her horses who fell within the measurement requirements.

I believe that this is a huge problem and hurts the integrity of our associations.


----------



## Erica (Oct 31, 2007)

I got this letter via email as well........and while I don't show AMHA I've always wondering (or thought it quite silly) for you to have a protest a horse BEFORE it enters the ring.

Are you suppose to go protroll around and see if you see horses that are tall, or what?

AMHR pretty sure you have to have a horse IN the class to protest, makes sense right? You see the horse, out with other horses (some of which you may "personally" know the height of) see one that towers over, bingo if you want, file a protest.

But AMHA you have to protest before it ever sets foot into the public eye


----------



## Kitty (Oct 31, 2007)

I agree that the withers may be the fairest way to measure and people need to stop stretching. I have seen it alot and just shake my head. They are going to be what they are going to be. But in AMHR I have seen alot of the stewards ask them to square the horses up. WAY TO GO!!!!

But people need to be careful of what they say because they may have done the same thing years ago and guilty is guilty now matter how long ago it was.

I pulled a horse from a trainer that had my horses hoofs so long he would fit in the next class because his class size was filled with another horse he was training. So it can go both ways. Neither of which is fair to the horse.


----------



## Reble (Oct 31, 2007)

Not suprised




The owners are too blame.

Starts at their local shows, and so on and so on and so on.


----------



## HGFarm (Oct 31, 2007)

I agree, YEAH ED!!!!

No matter if they are Minis or where they are measured to- the mane, the withers or whatever, folks are going to try to find a way to cheat. The POA's have the same problems and they measure to the withers.

That is ridiculous that the horse has to be protested beforehand- who would know until many actually get INTO class and see what they are up against. I am not going to spend time running around looking for oversized horses that MIGHT be in my class. Good grief!

I am thoroughly disgusted that this continues. If the horse is over, go to the next category. If it's over 34, show at AMHR, or as someone said- stay home.

I have had mine measure differently on different shows, depending on feet, weight and how nervous they were, but not 2"- one at most was about 3/4" if I remember correctly. Upon letting him calm down some- he came down to within about 1/4" of his 'normal' size.

I understand that some folks may measure differently, and you may get different measurements at each show depending on many things, but if the horses are stood up like they are supposed to be, and not falling over from being stretched so far, it would at least be within reason.

I dont know how these folks get by with it- I have yet to be allowed to measure in at a show with the horse at all angles to fake the final result.


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Oct 31, 2007)

Erica said:


> I got this letter via email as well........and while I don't show AMHA I've always wondering (or thought it quite silly) for you to have a protest a horse BEFORE it enters the ring.
> 
> Are you suppose to go protroll around and see if you see horses that are tall, or what?
> 
> ...


AMHR you MUST BE IN THE CLASS in order to protest(you cant be on the sidelines and see something that isnt right and then protest you would have to find someone actually participating in the class) and only have till the end of the session (at Nationals) or I think 2 hours after a class in a regular show to do so.

I do think that since AMHA posts all the heights of the horses it does make sense to be able to protest if little rocket was showing all year with you in your area in the say 32-34 and then suddenly as in the under 30.

I dont show AMHA either but I can see how it makes sense to get it taken care of BEFORE the class starts that way it cant be said it was something done to move a horse up if one is taken out maybe?????


----------



## angel_cowgirl (Oct 31, 2007)

AMEN!!

And thats exactly how it should be, an outside source should measure, groups of people who have been trained properly but have no personal interest in the shows and won't back down if someone bullies them - cause they don't care where a horse measures. I've heard this idea before and think its a great idea. It's a shame that those within the organization can't just buck up and be honest but if they can't then we need to do the next best thing and go to other unbiased sources.

There's so many sub-issues involved here. I just feel so sad that the leadership and members of this organization can't follow its rules, that are in black and white (the rulebook). It mostly saddens me because I still consider myself a young member of the organization, but if this is what the other young members and youth see going on then we can't expect anything better when we get old enough to be in the leadership positions because we don't know any better - because this will be "how its been" run for years.


----------



## Cathy_H (Oct 31, 2007)

I was wondering how long it would be before someone besides we little guys got irritated enough to start squealing.



> We need leaders that are held to a higher standard and can be counted on to do the right thing.





> Our supply is now greater than the demand and we know what that does to our market


..... Not a good feeling when the scales are NOT balanced is it? 



> we are ticking off our legitimate breeder / exhibitor and they are not coming back


 - Got that right! ..... We've been AMHA members since 1985 & showed at 5-6 AMHA yearly shows until about 2003. We kept hanging on waiting for fairness & equality - same old song & dance.




> Our management states that this rule will cause havoc with the show and that it may be abused just to avenge rather than to make things right


........ So abuse it!!! OH! .... If that is what it takes then so be it! The first year would be a circus but once word got around the following years would run smoother.



> This new rule is designed to get people to put their horses in the right class and if they are to big, then they should leave them home. The board is going to try and overturn this rule.


. Why are we not suprised to hear this!!!







> We should all be for the betterment of our association


 - - - Been saying that since the 1980's............. Let the feathers fly - perhaps the bigger birds can do more than we little ones were able to.


----------



## justagirl (Oct 31, 2007)

Tony said:


> Bravo ED!!!
> 
> Since now the measuring is being videotaped and stretching is being called, I noticed a "new" phenomenon. I saw numerous horses being measured while at the World that were with their front legs spred so wide that it was a wonder they could stand. It doesn't show on camera, but I guarantee that a person would NEVER set up the horse in the ring like that. One I saw had almost eighteen inches between his front legs, and it WASN'T because of a big broad chest! It was because a _*cheater*_ was at the lead.



I'm still very new to showing miniatures , but I know when I go to have my horse measured , I'm not allowed to set my horses feet . So if this is how it's supposed to be , how are these horses ending up with the feet so far apart ? In 30 years of owning horses I've never seen one that stood that way naturally.

So whoever was doing the measuring was allowing this AND from what I understood , the people doing the measuring were the same folks that teach other stewards how to measure .... am I incorrect ?


----------



## wpsellwood (Oct 31, 2007)

Go Ralphie!!


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Oct 31, 2007)

> Our existence in the equine world is based on being known as a breed of horse that measures 34" and under. If you read our rule book and the articles of incorporation, it is plain to see that the forefathers of this association declared that an AMERICAN MINIATURE HORSE is 34" and under. *This is what sets us apart from other registries and helps produce a market for legitimate Miniature Horses.*


You lost me when you had to say "this is what sets us apart from other registries and helps produce a market for *legitimate Miniature Horses"*. I'm thinking AMHA/ASPC market is doing very well, better then AMHA's. Maybe some of the 'tude should stop.

I know nothing to do with measuring........just sick of the 'tude. I'll go feed my horses, my miniature horses and shetland ponies now.


----------



## wcr (Oct 31, 2007)

I was at a combined A/R a while back, we had a filly that almost didn't make her class in measurement. During the class there was the winning filly that clearly towered over the rest of the class. Surprise, owned by an AMHA president. During the R portion of the show I brought out a horse that consistently measures 34.5. I had a different AMHA president and an AMHA offical tell me to remeasure the horse as I could get it under 34. I am being honest to show the horse where it belongs and was offended to have officials of AMHA tell me to cheat.


----------



## ClickMini (Oct 31, 2007)

That is all fine and dandy, and I agree with getting tough on measuring. However, I certainly do not understand why hardshipping was brought into the discussion. For heck's sake, this is a HEIGHT breed. I have FOUR HORSES, including 3 mares and a stallion, that I plan to hardship in the next five years to the tune of $3000, as they are eligible. All are well within the 34" maximum. I have no problem standing them up for anyone to check. Let's see. Those are all breeding animals. How many foals will be registered as a follow-on to the original $3000. And by the way, why do we have to wait until age 5 to hardship? I can tell you right now, that if they were eligible in 2008 as hardshipped animals, I would also show my stallion and two of my mares in AMHA shows, I would also try to qualify them to take to the world show. That is quite a chunk of change the registry is passing up that I am ready and willing to send their way. Who is the registry? IT IS US... Instead I will take these nice individuals to Tulsa to compete, after they qualify at AMHR shows...THIS IS COMING UP FOR VOTE AT THE 2008 AMHA MEETING, I PLAN TO BE THERE TO VOTE ON IT.

If AMHA stops all hardshipping, I will show strictly AMHR from here on out. I won't even agonize about what to do like I have this year. It will be a done deal for me. I have quality AMHA/AMHR horses and I have quality AMHR horses that are all under 34". Legitimately. I bought them from a farm who got disgusted with AMHA years ago and quit registering with them. Won't it be a shame if more farms go that way...or maybe we won't have to worry at all at that point because we will only have one registry to deal with.

I personally really like the AMHA registry, and that is why I agonize over whether to show my AMHA string in the R shows so that I can show my whole gang, or whether to leave some home and just show A. I am on the fence right now for the '08 season. I bet I am not an isolated case.

edited to add a question. How about horses that measure right on the money for a height? Say your horse is 32" tall. Can it show in either or? 30-32" or 32"-34"??? Maybe that is how SOME horses are able to show in two divisions. Not all.


----------



## whitney (Oct 31, 2007)

AMHA is a registry for 34" and UNDER.

If you have a horse that is over, no matter how perfect it is, it is STILL over, don't show it, or hardship into AMHR where it BELONGS and show it there.

Or if you do show it in AMHA, do it knowing that that horses AMHA papers may be revoked ON THE SPOT. I believe that is what they were trying to do this year and why some horses were not shown. Proves that this WORKS keep up the good work.

To help in accurately measuring post 4 cameras front, back, and both sides. Cameras and video recorders are CHEAP, AMHA can afford it. Horses should be handled by the measuring team not the owners or trainers.

Protested horses should be measured at the FIRST available break and in the main arena, with owners and trainers present, results should be announced over the PA system, cheaters don't like to be put in the spotlight, no matter what their credentials. I also believe that those that file protests to get back at others, are penalized if the protested horses measure in the protest fees double after every legal horse measured. So protest away AMHA maybe able to make up the fees for smaller class sizes.

Once the Association makes a decision they need to make the members aware and then start implementing FIRMLY to make examples of those that want to "test" the system.

GOD I love these "LITTLE" guys and want them to stay that way, with a registry all their own.

Edited to add: PLEASE DO NOT close hardship, the AMHA does not have enough really outstanding moving animals nor the refinement............ outside blood is GOOD!

For those that show alot. Are the judges not held accountable for placing oversized horses?


----------



## albahurst (Oct 31, 2007)

My understanding is that height classes are 'cut off' at the exact inch, then the next height class is the '*Over* 30"-32", for example. Then, the next height class is the *Over* 32"- 34". Both classes do not include the 32" measurement. You cannot be in two height classes at one time. Hope this is helpful.

I had a blast at Worlds this year! The people were great and the horses were beautiful! It was a dream come true for me! These horses have given me a reason to get up in the morning (although the reasons changed when I slept in a stall at Worlds!!! And, that was five! Horses love to bang their buckets on the stall walls at nights OH! ). I am glad to see measures taken for the integrity of the association. I am not going to let it all spoil the fun for me, however.

Peggy


----------



## Fred (Oct 31, 2007)

I am one of the little guys and I can't tell you how many times if I have a horse right on the line at the top of its height in a class and had it be the smallest horse in the class!!! Two of my mares are 32 inches ON THE LINE and I have taken them in the 30 to 32 class and been the smallest horses in the class. Mind you this isn't just AMHA as I show mostly AMHR so its both registries. Its not just the officials or the trainers its also up to the owners to be fair and honest of what you have going in the ring in the proper class, as an owner YOU KNOW WHAT HEIGHT YOUR HORSE IS. The owner is the one paying the trainer and the owner is also the one who is a member of the association and has the ability to kick out any official that is not playing by the rules by voting them out. If the trainer wants to put the horse in a lower or higher height class the owner has the right to say no.


----------



## Belinda (Oct 31, 2007)

Just wanted to ad that while Ed made some good points, I took offense to his statement about the Legitimate Miniatures






As if the over divison is not legitmate ?????? I have over ones in training that come from 4 or 5 generations of under 34" some way under , and they end up 34 1/2 or bigger.. And not just one bloodline but many !!

And also He called several cheaters.. He failed to mentioned that he also had some that were protested and measured out OH! OH! After they had already measured . So how is this any different ?

I vote for measuring on the withers like all the rest of the equine world including Ponies !!!!

And Erica was correct , In AMHR to protest height you must have a horse entered in the class with the one you are protesting , just saves alot of these witch hunts !!



! And I hate to say but I feel that is what happened at AMHA this year.. If you were not on the hunted list you were ok,, as there were plenty of large horses still left in the classes that could have easily been protested..


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Oct 31, 2007)

Both registries really need to tighten up measuring. Get an uninterested party to measure, someone who really doesn't care who you are or what you do. Video tape it.

The rules are there, they need to ENFORCE them.

My WCP driving gelding is 34 1/4" - JUST over the limit. He was the smallest horse in his class, yet we had someone go over to the stewad and DEMAND to know how tall he was just before the Stakes class at Nationals this year to make sure he wasn't over!



We know they were just playing mind games.... but really? (It didn't work- we beat them anyways..)

Lucy


----------



## Kitty (Oct 31, 2007)

Thank you Belinda I was thinking the same thing about several of your points and trying to find a nice way of saying it.

My daughter would be very offended if someone said her over gelding was not legitimate. He was from two definitely under 34 inch horses but kept GROWING to 36. And placed 2 times this year as a Top Ten in some huge classes.


----------



## MountainMeadows (Oct 31, 2007)

All I can say about the letter from Ed is:

Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones.





Stacy


----------



## SweetOpal (Oct 31, 2007)

Yes thank you belinda, I have a mare who was amha/amhr and her sire is well known in the A world, however she is 36" so I guess in Ed's eyes should she should not exist!

Also thank you for pointing out his horses too were MEASURED INCORRECTLY! I love it when people call the kettle black without inspecting thier own pot!

Jennifer


----------



## wpsellwood (Oct 31, 2007)

I have to say is well done Ed and for this comment



> Also thank you for pointing out his horses too were MEASURED INCORRECTLY! I love it when people call the kettle black without inspecting thier own pot!


 all I have to say is that he had no problem taking his horses back over there to be remeasured. Where were the others?


----------



## minimomNC (Oct 31, 2007)

Doesn't matter if he did have horses protested, the point of his letter is still the same. And the point isn't are miniature horses legitimate if they are over 34" the point is something needs to be addressed about measuring.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 31, 2007)

I think it's a very good letter. I wish someone was making the same sort of noise over AMHR measuring!

As for his getting "caught" first--well, he didn't get away with it I guess, and why should anyone else? If he puts the push on this and gets things cleaned up, he will surely have to abide by the rules just like everyone else will. That must surely be a good thing.

I fully believe that protests should be allowed after the class. That way if a horse is protested and then measures out, he's out. He doesn't get to be moved into a different class, he's just OUT. His award is stripped & he's DQ'd. If someone--trainer, owner, whoever--tries to get that horse measured into the wrong class, why should the horse get protested in advance & so give the owner/trainer the opportunity to move him into the proper class & still get to show? (That is how it works, is it not?) Maybe they think they're being punished that way, but I don't see that as punishment. Punishment is being DQ'd. Maybe the horse shouldn't just be DQ'd from the one class--he should be DQ'd from the whole show! There'd be a good one!


----------



## kaykay (Oct 31, 2007)

Karen (minimom) I normally always agree with you but I strongly disagree that its not about a horse 34" or over being illegitimate. This has always been AMHA's standing (they say consistently anything over 34" is NOT a Miniature HOrse) and yet they name World National Champions that are clearly over 34"

To AMHA I say you cant have it both ways.


----------



## minimomNC (Oct 31, 2007)

But again Kaykay it goes back to measuring. If AMHA wants to call only a horse 34" and under a miniature horse then they darn well need to make sure that the horses showing do not exceed that height. That I agree with you on.


----------



## txminipinto (Oct 31, 2007)

The problem with measuring at the withers is that some of our own stewards have a hard time finding the withers! They are not half way up the horse's neck! OH! How about we measure at the lowest point of the back?




Or the height of the hock.....knee......elbow.....anyone?


----------



## Mona (Oct 31, 2007)

txminipinto said:


> The problem with measuring at the withers is that some of our own stewards have a hard time finding the withers! They are not half way up the horse's neck! OH! How about we measure at the lowest point of the back?
> 
> 
> 
> Or the height of the hock.....knee......elbow.....anyone?



It doesn't matter HOW they're measured, WHERE they're measured, or by WHO they're measured...there will ALWAYS be problems with people trying every trick in the book to measure how they WANT their horse to measure. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this will never stop, never change, as long as we remain a "height" breed.


----------



## Yaddax3 (Oct 31, 2007)

Measure at the withers? Wouldn't that gut the AMHA registry? Any horse that currently measures 32 to 33 inches could measure over 34 inches if the withers are used as the standard.

Also ...

While my family has both AMHA and AMHR horses -- we show mostly AMHR -- I'm weary of the arrogance of some AMHA-only exhibitors who claim any horse over 34 inches isn't a Miniature. The funny thing is, some of the folks who've made that comment appear to have a few of those 34-plus inch horses that, if measured properly, would be B horses in AMHR.

Until you eliminate cronyism and favortism, you will have this problem with measurements.


----------



## Buckskin gal (Oct 31, 2007)

I think there is a need to understand that according to AMHA rules/Standard, anything over 34" is not a miniature horse but that is not saying that AMHR doesn't have their rules/Standard that says a miniature horse can be up to and including 38." There is just a difference in definition of a miniature horse from one registry to another ...doesn't make one or the other right or wrong since each has their own Standard to abide by. No different than AMHR saying anything over 38" isn't legitimately a miniature horse. Really not that difficult to understand. mary


----------



## kaykay (Oct 31, 2007)

ughhh i guess i am not being understood.

How can AMHA say nothing over 34" is a Miniature Horse and yet *NAME NATIONAL CHAMPIONS THAT ARE OVER 34"!!! *

I dont know how much simpler I can make it. According to amha it is not a miniature horse yet their own champions are clearly over 34!!!




thats my only point not which registry is right or wrong regarding height.


----------



## Buckskin gal (Oct 31, 2007)

I do understand what you are saying Kay but I was referring to another post which I took differently from yours. Mary



kaykay said:


> ughhh i guess i am not being understood.
> 
> How can AMHA say nothing over 34" is a Miniature Horse and yet *NAME NATIONAL CHAMPIONS THAT ARE OVER 34"!!! *
> 
> ...


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Oct 31, 2007)

There needs to be some type of program for BOTH registeries to teach these stewards on how to measure these miniatures correctly. I honestly feel that is the major issue is they just don't look at the overall picture and follow the check lists when it comes to measuring.

I don't show at Worlds, but I do at Nationals, and I can honestly say those stewards who do the measuring needs to get their act together and correctly measure these horses. I'm amazed at some of these horses that are actually under 38"



. Theres no way. Get these horses standing up square, take your time, and get them measured in correctly. This is a National show after all, lets be professional about it.

Oh and love the Bs








I am a member in both registries, Im even going to be hardshipping a horse into AMHA, AMHA does not need to close their registeries at this time. Why do we need to so badly? Both registeries have problems period, end of story.


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Oct 31, 2007)

kaykay said:


> ughhh i guess i am not being understood.
> 
> How can AMHA say nothing over 34" is a Miniature Horse and yet *NAME NATIONAL CHAMPIONS THAT ARE OVER 34"!!! *
> 
> ...


I get it Kay with horses measuring say 35 and showing in the World show and winning a National champion simply cause they somehow managed to squeak in.. how can they have it both ways not a mini but a champion in there registry


----------



## Mulligans Run (Oct 31, 2007)

Belinda said:


> And also He called several cheaters.. He failed to mentioned that he also had some that were protested and measured out After they had already measured . So how is this any different ?
> 
> And Erica was correct , In AMHR to protest height you must have a horse entered in the class with the one you are protesting , just saves alot of these witch hunts !!
> 
> ...






Touche' Belinda!!! Well said!

And I agree with the protesting AFTER the horses have shown - there is no way to see all the horses out there until they hit the show ring. It wasn't until I saw horses lined up in the ring that it was obvious how wrong the measuring was. These were horses I had never seen before since they were from a different area that we show in. But one in particular towered over a protested horse that was bumped down....yet the tall horse remained in the class that the protested horse was knocked out of.



Hope that made sense...hard to explain without naming names and I'm not going there.

Not sure if I agree with "having to have a horse in the class to protest" as it would keep many from being able to step forward...but I do understand how it would discourage vengence hunters.

I feel that the responsibility lies with the measuring people. They need to be properly trained and need to stick to their guns. I sat in the measuring area and saw measuring all over the place...and surprising NOT in the way you would think. I saw them make the trainers keep the horses under themselves, while others were allowed to stretch them....and the measuring rules weren't followed either. The books states that you take 3 measurements and average them. This was not done. My daughter heard the measuring person say 29, 28.5 and 28 and a little bit so we'll just call it 28....



If it was 34 and a little bit do you think they'd allow it?

The crackdown needs to start at the local shows.


----------



## Dorrie & Frank (Oct 31, 2007)

The problem is not a matter of not knowing where to measure. Never has been. We had no problem with my daughters' stallion measuring at 32 1/4 until an owner of a horse was in a "must have" situation for qualifying points for Worlds and suddenly he was 31 3/4 and put in the lower class. My daughter was not told and missed the gate - my oh my - we protested - they laughed - you had to protest before the gate closed. It is a matter of the owners wanting to walk away with plastic trophies and points so they can sell progeny. Its business and it has become a very crooked business because he AMHA board, directors, executives and show managers have allowed it to occur.

It is not about B sized not being legitimate - its about how the crooked business of AMHA makes the unders illegitimate. We all recognize that the R group was born out of frustration with the A group not allowing over 34 - the competition between the two organizations should make the business larger and better. A small town that can't support one lawyer readily supports two. If the rules were enforced the A horses could be proud of their of heritage just as the B horses are.

Stacey watch out for that glass house analogy. It could back fire/


----------



## hahler (Oct 31, 2007)

I have a suggestion.

ive seen people here mention about the stance of the horse at measuring

what about measuring from the coronet band to the withers, that would eliminate the stance problem or the need for my services at shows.

i watched alot of hours of measuring at the worlds and i thought they did a good job with what they had to work with

there was more cameras going off in that little place then the paparazzi going after britney spears

that made the horses nervous also

just my 2 cents worth

dawn


----------



## Belinda (Oct 31, 2007)

Dorrie & Frank said:


> We all recognize that the R group was born out of frustration with the A group not allowing over 34 - the competition between the two organizations should make the business larger and better.



I am not sure how long you have been a member ? So no offense here , but *AMHR WAS NOT A SPIN OFF OF AMHA *



OH! Matter of fact much the opposite.. The AMHR was the FIrst Miniature Horse Registry !!








The AMHR put the over size division much later , after AMHA was formed.. And I can get you all the dates but really don't want to have to look all that up,



T

Sorry know this was off subject but could not help it..





he older I get the more I forget things like that.. LOL !


----------



## Karin - NaKar Miniatures (Oct 31, 2007)

I think that the purpose of Ed's letter is to inform as many AMHA members about certain persons wanting to over turn a rule that has already been passed. We, as AMHA members, should let the Board know how we feel about this.

"In the near future you will be hearing about a group of people that are trying to overturn a new rule that has already been voted on and passed by the membership. The new rule states that a horse may be protested at any time up to 2 hours after the show. Our management states that this rule will cause havoc with the show and that it may be abused just to avenge rather than to make things right. I say to our leadership, If you measure our horses correctly the first time, then you will have no problem. The problem is we are not doing it right and that is causing the problem. This new rule is designed to get people to put their horses in the right class and if they are to big, then they should leave them home. *The board is going to try and overturn this rule. * I have bad news for them, they set a presidence with the futurity committee when they wanted to enhance the futurity with some good ideas. Our legal council advised that what ever the membership has voted for is how it has to be. This rule went through all of the correct channels, it was voted on, passed and now will come into effect on Jan 1 of 08.

*We should all be for the betterment of our association and it is time to put the violators on notice*. As of Jan 1 /08, every show manager should be held liable to measure the horses correctly. They should be held accountable along with our leadership and management. *Please help to put us back on a constructive track to better our association*. Before long, none of us will be proud of the outcome if we don’t act soon."


----------



## Jean_B (Oct 31, 2007)

Belinda said:


> Just wanted to ad that while Ed made some good points, I took offense to his statement about the Legitimate Miniatures
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dorrie & Frank (Oct 31, 2007)

Have it your way but my husband and our friends were there. And Belinda you know who we got Blaze from. Enough said.


----------



## Minimor (Oct 31, 2007)

For anyone wanting the dates...*AMHR was started in 1972 * (I have an ASPC brochure that gives that information!) and *AMHA was founded in 1978 * (that info is right off of the AMHA website). And yes, initially AMHR was for 34" and under only.  I don't know what year it was changed to include horses up to 38". I have seen that date somewhere, but don't ask me where!


----------



## Belinda (Oct 31, 2007)

Dorrie & Frank said:


> Have it your way but my husband and our friends were there. And Belinda you know who we got Blaze from. Enough said.


LOL !! Ok,, first let me say I am not sure what Champion Farm Blaze ( who was sired by Redboy) and is a sound under 34" horse has to do with ,, Actually you have owned him a long time , and second you did purchase him from Willa and Phil Marks ??? So to answer your question Yes I do know who you got him from!

I am not wanting to turn this into a big debate , but again,, What and who makes you think the AMHA was the first Miniature horse Reg.. The B divison of AMHR was formed in 1986 with the help of Bob Huston, My father and couple of others..

Here is a text taken right from AMHA website..

Founded in 1978, AMHA promotes the breeding, use and perpetuation of a standard of equine excellence in miniature, separate and apart from ponies and other small equids. Horses registered with AMHA must meet the Association standard of perfection and cannot exceed 34 inches in height at the withers as measured from the last hairs of the mane. 

*The AMHR Divison of the Shetland Pony Club was founded in 1971-- by Several including Mr. Bond, Bob Huston, Geroge Heart, Bert Zuegue, Bill Ferguson, Alton Freeman, Alan Goforth, Billy Howell , Russel Jackson, Ray Lee, Delmer Moody, Earl Bud Soats.*


----------



## Gypsygal (Oct 31, 2007)

What about the horses that are shown at AMHR in the over 34" and are registered as "B" minis but are then shown and registered with AMHA as under 34". I actually bought a mare that was guaranteed to be 33 1/4" - had her shipped to me (I was not smart enough to look at both sets of papers - just the AMHA papers). Figured since she had shown AMHA for a complete season that there should not be a problem. THis mare was almost 35" - no matter how we measured her. Now I have a mare who is over and when I contacted the seller they said they could get her to measure under and proceeded to tell me how. They showed both AMHA and AMHR and at the time they got better results with her in the over class at AMHR so they let her show her real height there.

I pulled her AMHA papers. After the expense of shipping her and knowing the battle I would have - I let it go. When I called AMHA they said that they did not care what the horse measured for AMHR.

Not real impressed with that response. I get the feeling that I would still get the same response. AMHA has lost a lot of money over the years from us not registering our babies within AMHA - all but a few could have been.

AMHA you had better start looking around and seeing what and who you are losing before it is to late.

Gypsygal


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Oct 31, 2007)

Belinda said:


> .. The B divison of AMHR was formed in 1986 with the help of Bob Huston, My father and couple of others..


Wow really? That is pretty cool to have family who was a part of such a (well imo anyway) great decision and to be able to see it go from an idea to the wonderful competitive division it is today.. pretty neat!


----------



## Margo_C-T (Oct 31, 2007)

I would like to add some comments...

First- I suspect that 'Dorrie and Frank" meant to say that the B DIVISION of AMHR was formed 'out of frustration with the A group not allowing over 34'; I well remember when that occurred. The AMHR was formed in 1972, the AMHA, in 1978. The B(now 'Over')division of AMHR did not come along until around 13-16 years ago, give or take.

I did not just fall off the turnip truck; I am only too aware that this is very likely a matter of 'whose ox was being gored'...I have seen the letter writer in line to be measured at a show holding horses which in my experienced opinion were over 34"; but when the envelope has been pushed, and pushed, and PUSHED some more, and someone other than some of us small potatoes finds themself in the position many of the 'ordinary' members/exhibitors have found themselves in--that is, actually being held to the rules when others weren't, and/or finding oneself in a class with horses CLEARLY not 'legal' for the class--well, then the shoe may get moved over onto the other foot-you think?? Even so, though, this IS something that has long needed to be brought forth, by someone who significant numbers of others,including the 'powers that be', *might* actually listen to! (I would add-I believe it is equally reprehensible to mismeasure to 'fit' horses into 'desired' classes as it is to 'enable' them to compete at all when they are patently OVERSIZED by AMHA's rules for ANY class!)

To 'go back to' something resembling accurate measurement ONLY in response to the protests, so that(as someone already said), if you weren't one of 'the hunted', your TALL horse still ended up being allowed to show, while others measured out(as they should have, if they are too tall)-- made the whole situation EVEN MORE of a travesty! I believe that this really is NOT on the shoulders of the measurers; It is my opinion that they are only doing what the top eschelon of 'management' at AMHA has indicated that they wish them to do--and by this example, made clear that they would also 'tolerate' at local shows. I have refused to attend the measurement at our local show for several years now. When the measurement travesty is so blatantly being tolerated at the National(World) level, why would anyone think that there would be ANY support from the parent organization for those who try to 'buck the trend' by protest or otherwise at the local level? Believe me, there IS a LOT of pressure to 'accomodate' trainers/'important' owners, even at local shows-and if the show as a whole fears the loss of these 'important' entries--well, how far do you think one 'ordinary person' is going to get in protest??

As for mininik asking Tony if he filed a protest? I think probably one should have been filed, to be frank--BUT,I don't believe there are any CURRENT RULES against the horses being stood with their legs splayed sideways-so, how much success does anyone think such an action would have had? VERY sad to say, those who would cheat apparently stay up nights coming up with ways to circumvent the rules, in ways that those who would NOT cheat would NEVER even have conceived! In our area, we used to have to watch someone with a VERY TALL "AMHA" mare first stretch her, then the handler place the mare's head on her shoulder, and quite literally point the mare's nose to the sky,at measurements--when the rules specifically BARRING such machinations went into effect, the mare of course measured out-something the owners did not take with good grace, BTW, because they had been 'getting by with it' for so long-BUT, it does show that rules, when ENFORCED, can and do, work.

(And kaykay, I agree with you 110%; the GROSS HYPOCRISY of AMHA in their ENDLESS pronouncements about "34" and under" as the legal size, while not only allowing, but 'promoting'through National winner status, horses that PLAINLY are NOT 'legal' in size according to THEIR OWN rules, has for years now, and increasingly, just made me want to PUKE! I have lost a LOT of respect for an organization I that I have a 23 year history with because of it...I wonder if that's how they want their 'rank and file' membership to feel?

IMO, this letter may have come from a 'less than perfect' source, but it contains MUCH that needed saying right out....so I'll take it, in hopes that it will be a much-needed first step toward cleaning up AMHA's management and practices before so many members lose faith that the organization is destroyed...which I believe could VERY WELL happen. AMHA seems bent on destroying ITSELF!

Sorry I'm so long-winded(as you all already know, I'm sure!), but I just said what I felt I HAD to say.

Margo


----------



## Marty (Oct 31, 2007)

OK let me get this straight:

I should buy a knock out horse, pay a fabulous trainer all kinds of money, spend thousands campaigning him for this?

I think not.

What ever happend to having FUN at horse shows?

_There was another so called high profile controversial horse that the owner and trainer left unmeasured standing in the stall. I wonder why? Does the word guilty sound familiar. If the shoe fits, wear it._

No the word guilty doesn't sound familiar but the word jealousy does. And for the record, he knows what he can do with his shoes.


----------



## skylineminis (Nov 1, 2007)

txminipinto said:


> The problem with measuring at the withers is that some of our own stewards have a hard time finding the withers!
> 
> In my opinion, if they can't find or know where the withers are, why are they being used for measuring? Seems to me they should be reading books and trying to find the different parts of the horse. I think you meant this as a joke. Hope so.
> 
> I think the idea of changing the rule to measure at the point of withers was addressed before and to have that done, it would be a By-Laws change that would somehow have to go into a bunch of red tape to have it done. Don't remember the details and like someone mentioned, it would put a huge database in error. All of the horses, dead or alive, would have to be remeasured. There is no failsafe formula that I know of that would be close to what the horse could measure without remeasuring all.


----------



## skylineminis (Nov 1, 2007)

I would like to give one a warning. If you are not one of the "elete few", if you protest a horse, you have the chance to be black balled in the miniature horse world. I won't go into detail but, I say this from my experience and a few others that dared to "do what's right for everyone". It's sad but reprocussions are serious and can ruin your chances of ever doing anything in the show ring again.

If you ever decide to take the plunge and do a protest for right and wrong, be aware of the cost. It will/can happen to you, too.


----------



## gatorbait4sure (Nov 1, 2007)

If the "New Rule" goes into effect, and we can be protested up to two hours AFTER a show, does this mean we all must stay for two extra hours AFTER the show is finished, just in case? OR if we get a call from someone in charge of this, do we need to return to the show site to be remeasured?


----------



## Becky (Nov 1, 2007)

> If the "New Rule" goes into effect, and we can be protested up to two hours AFTER a show, does this mean we all must stay for two extra hours AFTER the show is finished, just in case?


I know that that BOD is working now to resolve this problem. It has been suggested that the time be shortened to 15 minutes (?) after a show instead of 2 hours.


----------



## sfmini (Nov 1, 2007)

Ok, I was going to stay quiet, but can't.

We discussed tabling the rule for the concerns mentioned by Dru. Do you really want to be forced to remain on the show grounds 2 hours after your last class? I think not, I think you will want to go home.

We are NOT against tightening up the measuring rules, we are FOR making the measuring more accurate. There was not a board member in our meeting who spoke against the need for a good rule. We all agree there is a problem and we need to address it. Local show managers need to address it as well.

The measurer for the world show is non political. She does not own or show miniature horses. As a matter of fact, she was Judy's 4-H advisor a hundred years ago.

I do resent a blanket statement that the board got special treatment in measuring. That has sure never happened to me, and I know it hasn't happened to other board members that I know.

I do own an AMHR national top ten B horse who shows AMHA now. He was 2, and was a hair over 33". Still is as a mature horse, making him an A in both registries.

The originator of the rule (one of the 'big' guns) agreed with the decision as the 2 hour part of the rule was NOT part of the proposal. The intent and desire was to allow protesting the height after a horse shows. Also to eliminate the little game of getting youth to show those questionable horses early in the show before people get there and notice the height issue. After all, once the horse has shown, right now it is home free. Youth division included.

What the board did was to create a sub committee of board members AND the originator of the rule to come up with a solid, enforceable rule.

Our November teleconference to be held in a few weeks will have this measuring issue as a main topic and we hope to have something solid to take forward to the membership at the annual meeting.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Measuring at the withers will not solve the problem, you can train horses to shrink down, I had an open jumper 'pony' with a perm. pony card that was 14.2 1/2. She always measured under due to a former owner training her to shrink as the stick comes down, and you could not see her do it!

As for the person who will boycott AMHA in favor of AMHR if AMHA closes hardshipping. Ummm, you mean you will show in the registry that closed hardshipping a few years ago and no longer allows it? I am afraid I don't follow the logic on that one.


----------



## LaVern (Nov 1, 2007)

Just wondering, Was there any height protests at Nationals this past year? Anybody heard. Renee- Lucky Hart Ranch


----------



## Cathy_H (Nov 1, 2007)

Ok give every judge a stick to carry around in each class. Anytime there is a question about oversize, the judge can wave the stick over the horse, then ask the horse to be taken out for remeasuring............... Most people won't be put into these embarassing situations & turn around at the gate................ BUT since there are judges that are pals with certain trainers/exhibitors this won't work either. Also this would lengthen the time a class takes to be judged for awhile anyway until people got the message................. If officials won't enforce & the stewards either don't know how to measure or takes their misguided cue from the officials then someone has to be the bad guy........ By the way if someone doesn't do their job correctly & by the rules aren't they usually fired?............................ Edited to ask - why can't a judge protest an overheight horse? They didn't HAVE to place those oversize horses! Goes to show everyone is on the same page being told to do the same thing. This could stop with the judges decision if they had a mind to - but this too boils down to $$$$$$$$'s for them.


----------



## sdmini (Nov 1, 2007)

I heard this years World was a Witch Hunt, that some of the horses were made to stand underneath themselves instead of standing square. Doing so is going to bunch that shoulder up and make them measure taller. This comes from someone who is quite versed in the miniature world and did not have a protested horse.

We are a height registry and always will be unless we want to throw out the very thing that makes a miniature horse "miniature". That said I understand completely why from a AMHA standpoint a 34"+ is no longer a legitimate. Same as a 38"+ horse is no longer a legitimate AMHR registered horse. They may come from AMHR parents but they are no longer legitimate AMHR horses. I have a 36 1/2" mare that comes from AMHA parents but is not a legitimate miniature by AMHA's standards. It's nothing personal, the statement was not directed at me or my mare.

As far as pinning a over horse champion the judges have no control over what happens when measuring in, they have to judge what they see. Do we really want to give them power to judge on things they suspect?

I understand the horse shouldn't be in the class in the first place but from what I saw AMHR has NO room to talk. I had little to do but sit in the stands at Nationals, watch the measuring in and talk to trainers. After watching Nationals I have no burning desire to go back even though my horse did very well.

The fault beginnings and ends with the person holding the stick. Yes that is a pretty big load to dump on one set of shoulders but who else is suppose to make sure everyone plays fair in the sandbox.


----------



## Margot (Nov 1, 2007)

Measuring problems are probably a never ending battle but I think we have to look at why people are trying to get their horses in smaller classes than they belong in. The AMHA rules say that all things being equal as far as quality the smaller horse should always be preferred over the bigger one but in reality if you go to shows you see that it is almost always the horse that is at the top of its class size that actually wins. It is still easier to breed the larger mini to look more horse-like than the smaller ones and the judges seem to prefer the larger ones in most cases. At AMHR shows it is now the ASPC/AMHR minis that seem to have the advantage and people have told me they cannot compete with the ASPC minis. So the minis that are winning are now often pure Shetland Pony. I know that most minis have a lot of Shetland blood but not all or they would not have some of the colors they do. So is it a good thing that maybe soon all the minis that do the winning are actually going to be pure Shetland, I don't know but I do think the reason people try to cheat their horses into smaller size classes is because they have an advantage being the tallest in the class. Measuring is not an exact science, I usually measure my horses bigger than what they measure at shows and if ten people measure the same horse they will not all get the same size. I wonder if this is a problem that can ever be solved.


----------



## Margo_C-T (Nov 1, 2007)

I haven't read the most recent AMHA Rulebook cover to cover lately, but it at least USED to make clear that judges are NOT allowed to question height; if the horse appears in a class, it is 'supposed to' be there, and its height may not be publically questioned by a judge. I do believe that is how it should be, all things considered. It is for the registry and its management, from the top down, to SEE THAT the RULES, which have been agreed to/set by the MEMBERS, ARE FOLLOWED AND ENFORCED!

I have very limited experience with AMHR, but from what I do have, I would say they have pretty much the SAME issues as AMHA--like it or not.

Margo


----------



## ClickMini (Nov 1, 2007)

Jody I agree with your post that the measuring issues are worked on constantly, I pay alot of attention to the board minutes and I also attended the annual meeting last year. I don't fault anyone for trying to resolve issues and I believe the 2 hour window is a real and true issue. I was at the meeting last year when it was discussed also.

And I also have to state that if hardshipping is closed, I WILL have to make a choice! I have some very nice AMHR only horses at the moment that are not yet old enough to hardship, yet they meet the other requirements. I bought them with the full intention of hardshipping them. And AMHR DOES allow hardshipping from AMHA and ASPC, right? So it is not totally closed. Which is what I hear is wanted by SOME in the AMHA registry. My point in my previous post is totally centered on the revenue loss to the registry of doing that. And the fact that I would be pretty sad about it if it happened. I really don't think that is a slam on the registry at all, but it absolutely would force me to choose. Just a fact of life! I am not selling my horses just so I can have all double-registered stock. Especially since they are already registered with one or more registries, AMHR and in one case AMHR/ASPC, and are ALL within the height limit for under horses!


----------



## LaVern (Nov 1, 2007)

I agree with you Margot. It is pretty hard for our 35-36 inch minis to compete with the ponies at Nationals,(Little Congress) but I have decided to let the size thing go. I'm going to just raise what I like, that breeds true and promote that.

I love going to Nationals ( Little Congress). I'll continue to take and, show what I like to see presented from my farm and maybe someone else will like it too. My customers do not want to have to worry about size and I don't want to have to return money because a horse went over 38 inches. Renee -Lucky Hart Ranch


----------



## windemereminis (Nov 1, 2007)

I have been reading this post with interest just as I did Ed's letter. I am thinking how simple this can be.

Has anyone ever thought of saying, "I believe that my horse is show quality and I have confidence in him/her?" Then you add to the statement, "However, I will enter the horse honestly with no strategies, but based on the qualities of the horse." If others would join in on what the letter said about getting their horses measured in at the accurate height then no further conversation is needed in that regards of the letter. I don't agree with the fact that the trainer's are not part of this solution because I believe that they do know what the height is of each and every horse in their show string. This has gone on for years in trying to move taller horses into the shorter height class, in order to win, and my hope is that more trainers and owners will take it upon themselves to say that they are ready to step up to the plate and they will no longer do so.

Ed is right that owners and their horses have been hurt by this. It happened to us more than once and our honesty in the matter cost us our horse even being shown. When our trainer walked away from our horse in 2005, because we made a legitimate protest, our horse was left in the stall. What a terrible experience for us and other individuals as well. I can't tell you the feeling of watching a horse, that is permanently registered with AMHA to be 1 1/2" over the height limit of the class, walk into the winner's circle. Not only did it cost us financially, but the emotional toll was more than I wanted to experience. My hope for the future is to know that owners will hold their head up high and say "Yes, my horse is incredible and it won honestly". Would our horse have been the World Champion? We will never know since that honor was taken away from us and our horse.

Can we ever go back and regain the honors that our horse lost from being cheated, NO, it isn't going to happen, but to see that some trainers and owners are saying, enough is enough, and I am going to take the high road is an incredible feeling. Will more of you say the same? Many have been guilty in the past and let's say, we can't change the past, but to look ahead and make our association the best it can be. Will you step up to the plate and say, Yes I have been guilty, but I want to go forward with the others who say honesty and integrity do matter? Did the past experience hurt us? I am sure that it did because a World Champion title went to a horse that was not legitimate. Has the owner ever said that they wished it hadn't happened? No, but I have hope that someday they will also say enough is enough. Will people make honest mistakes, I think so, but to see the trainers also say they are ready to move forward with integrity is a step in the right direction.

Thanks for listening!

Janet


----------



## kaykay (Nov 1, 2007)

Janet

I just want to say that I dont know you but was there when that whole fiasco happened. I saw first hand how you were treated and I was boiling over mad. I so respect and admire you for standing up for what is right. I know this has nothing to do with this thread but I just wanted to say it.

Or maybe it does? AFter watching this in 2005 cemented my decision to no longer be a member of AMHA.

And how did this thread go from wanting true measurements in AMHA to calling AMHR Nationals little congress and bashing ASPC/AMHR horses? I have said previously in this thread there are measuring problems in both registries we all know that but still!

Kay


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 1, 2007)

I did not take offense at anything Ed had to say, as I just considered the source and the audience it was intended for. LOL OH!

As far as horses over 34" not being legitimate that is just silly. They are beautiful and just as important in the miniature industry as a under 34" horse.





I have seen owners and trainers be real fools when it comes to someone that is measuring the horses at a show. Last year at the combination A & R show in San Antonio the lady was trying to be right as she could and people were down right hatefull to her which was really sad.





My best suggestion is the same as Belinda's, measure to the top of the withers. It would stop a lot of subjective things from happening.





Next I would put rules in place to deal with abusive exhibitors, bond the measuring stewarts and then pull those bonds if a person was found to be negligent on a regular basis with some sort of variance being fiqured into the mix.





Also to address the point that Belinda made about other horses being in the classes that were over the class size, she is correct.

I can also say that after going to the R nationals I saw it there also. So I am not sure why this is being made an just an A issue, in my opinion it is a mini industry issue.

It is times like this that I wish the registries could work with other to give us as breeders/members some rules that could be understood, put into implementation and enforced easily across the board.








Our only hope as owners/members of both registries is that the directors/officers of the two registries will try and make changes that are best for the breed as a whole. A and B sized horses included!





I know folks such as Belinda as an AMHR director are trying to do this and that it may take some time. In the mean time I will continue to voice my suggested changes and hope for the best from our leaders.








And before someone suggests it, *NO we do not need another registry*.



The two we have are filled with good folks and great horses, what more than that can we ask for. Yes there may be a few problems from time to time, but those can be addressed within our industry as needed.


----------



## Boinky (Nov 1, 2007)

honestly i don't think anyone can or is deluding themselves that it's not a problem with AMHR as well. I think the reason it's being discussed as AMHA pretty much exclusively in this post is because the letter is from an AMHA member to try to clean up AMHA rules right now. AMHR needs it just as much, but no one has written that letter for AMHR yet either! I think it's well past time it starts getting cleaned up in BOTH registries! To me there's very little subjective about measuring. yes you might get some MINOR variations depending on who is measuring but 1.5-2" + is just rediculous and obviously measuring incorrectly. everyone keeps saying they just don't know how to measure..that's BULL. they should not be measuring if they dont' know how to. If that were the case they could get any tom dick or harry off the street to d it instead of HIRING our stewards that were TRAINED to do it correctly.

I also can tell you i don't show A very often but the few times i have, at least ONE of those show's we were told "oh we can get your horse in don't worry" before even seeing the horse when we said "well he might be over we aren't sure". At ALL of the A show's i've been to they ask "how tall is he? and what class do you WANT him in?" "ok we'll get him in that height don't worry". I usually don't care what size mine are in..what they are they are.... well they'd always say "well are you SURE you want your horse there? we can make it smaller". give me a break!


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Nov 1, 2007)

well first off AMHR wouldnt be "little congress" it would be "big congress" if it were a "congress" at all




simply cause it is a bigger show but... it isnt congress it is Nationals and as far as pure bred minis you cant have pure bred horses when it is based on height alone and any breed that meets the height (or combonation of breeds) can be allowed in to the breeding pool.

I never understand this statement "purebred miniature horses" I can take purebred poodles and call them noodles.. I can breed generation after generation of "noodles" for 10-20 years but bottom line... no matter what I choose to call them they are indeed purebred "poodles" that I opted to call "noodles"






That said measuring will always be an issue even if done at the withers since some will say they are not sure where the withers are





It happens at both registries I am not sure what the answers are IMO trainers are not the "bad guys" I dont know who is or if anyone is or is it just a bad system all the way around set up to allow some to take the fall out depending on the luck of the draw?


----------



## runamuk (Nov 1, 2007)

Margo_C-T said:


> I haven't read the most recent AMHA Rulebook cover to cover lately, but it at least USED to make clear that judges are NOT allowed to question height; if the horse appears in a class, it is 'supposed to' be there, and its height may not be publically questioned by a judge.
> 
> Margo


Maybe that rule needs to be changed??

After all the judge is supposed to be judging the horses to the standard and if they see an exhibit that does not seem to meet the standard....well......

Do what they do with dogs and rabbits.

With dogs a judge can call for a wicket and measure right then and there any suspect exhibit.

In rabbits a judge can call for a scale and weigh the exhibit.

In both these species yes people still push the envelope but not near as much because on any given day their exhibit could be called out and DQ'd right there in the class.


----------



## Buckskin gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Good for you for doing what you think is the best thing. I think in the long run we will be doing the miniatures justice by working on what we like rather thangoing with the fad of the year.



Mary



LaVern said:


> I agree with you Margot. It is pretty hard for our 35-36 inch minis to compete with the ponies at Nationals,(Little Congress) but I have decided to let the size thing go. I'm going to just raise what I like, that breeds true and promote that.
> 
> I love going to Nationals ( Little Congress). I'll continue to take and, show what I like to see presented from my farm and maybe someone else will like it too. My customers do not want to have to worry about size and I don't want to have to return money because a horse went over 38 inches. Renee -Lucky Hart Ranch


----------



## Reble (Nov 1, 2007)

I agree the size is most important & conformation.

Titles are going to mean nothing, if this keeps up.

Miniature horses are to do with size not a breed.

The rule book does state, if equal the smallest one should come first.

Read the rule book again, instead of the farm name? oops did I say that.

I am always learning and this is what everyone tells us.





Hubby and I want to go to the AMHA and AMHR shows someday in the States, not to show but just to see the best of the best. Or are they


----------



## miniwhinny (Nov 1, 2007)

Tony said:


> Bravo ED!!!
> 
> Since now the measuring is being videotaped and stretching is being called, I noticed a "new" phenomenon. I saw numerous horses being measured while at the World that were with their front legs spred so wide that it was a wonder they could stand. It doesn't show on camera, but I guarantee that a person would NEVER set up the horse in the ring like that. One I saw had almost eighteen inches between his front legs, and it WASN'T because of a big broad chest! It was because a _*cheater*_ was at the lead.























All horse being measured should have to stand with their legs square. Any horse measured over should loose their registration on the spot. We are a HEIGHT breed. Expecting anything less makes it all a joke.


----------



## Mona (Nov 1, 2007)

Even THIS is kind of crazy?? It might be better if it was set to stary a certain length of time after the CLASS and not the show?? Some shows run over several days, and for those only showing in a few classes on a certain day should not have to stay until the end of the show. That would be NUTS!!



Becky said:


> > If the "New Rule" goes into effect, and we can be protested up to two hours AFTER a show, does this mean we all must stay for two extra hours AFTER the show is finished, just in case?
> 
> 
> I know that that BOD is working now to resolve this problem. It has been suggested that the time be shortened to 15 minutes (?) after a show instead of 2 hours.


----------



## sfmini (Nov 1, 2007)

I believe the proposed rule stated 2 hours after the last class the horse shows in. That would usually include the supreme horses (if supreme is at the end of the show), and the horses that showed in classes that were held during the final 2 hours of the show..... That could be a lot of horses.

As for closing hardshipping, I am supportive of it, but only if we stage it in a way that would allow horses that are purchased/bred in the hopes of hardshipping when they are old enough to be hardshipped in before the doors are totally closed. Every time the subject of closing hardshipping comes up, most who support the closure support this stance so I do anticipate that those horses you have that you will want to hardship will be hardshipped as you plan even if we do vote to close the books and finally come a step closer to being a breed.

I have stated (and this is only my personal opinion) that I would like to see a day come when an AMHA registered horse bred to an AMHA registered horse begets an AMHA registered horse regardless of height. The shows will limit the height to 34", but if you want to breed 50" AMHA horses, have a great time, they can never be shown, thus limiting their value as AMHA horses, but hey, let's go ahead and take the money for memberships and registrations. We all know there are some beautiful horses that went a tad over, that could have foals that mature under and could be great contributors to the AMHA gene pool.

ok, off to get my flame suit on!

Oh, and John, I look forward to seeing your rule change proposals at the next annual meeting.


----------



## Miniequine (Nov 1, 2007)

> All horse being measured should have to stand with their legs square. Any horse measured over should loose their registration on the spot.


What if YOUR horse was exactly 34". Would YOU show it if you

were risking its papers every time you showed it???

Nobody seems to know how to measure, so who's to say which

direction the error would go? and there are errors in EVERY measurement.

If I owned a very valuable horse that was actually 34",,, I'm not

sure I would take that risk.

~Sandy


----------



## stormy (Nov 1, 2007)

I have mentioned this before when height comes up and I am sure I am not the only one who ever experianced this. I have an AMHR B gelding, his papers have him at 35.5". He has measured in to shows at anywhere from 34" to 35.5", he has NEVER been measured the same height at two dofferant shows even when measured only a few weeks apart.

So now you want to pull papers on the spot if a horse measures 34.25?! I know of no way you can standardize measuring to the point were two differant people on differant days will get exactly the same height! I don't care if you are measuring withers, last hair of the mane or top of the ear...height depends on condition, the last trim job, how tired the horse is or how wired that day. Be fair, but also be reasonable!


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Nov 1, 2007)

sfmini said:


> I have stated (and this is only my personal opinion) that I would like to see a day come when an AMHA registered horse bred to an AMHA registered horse begets an AMHA registered horse regardless of height. The shows will limit the height to 34", but if you want to breed 50" AMHA horses, have a great time, they can never be shown, thus limiting their value as AMHA horses, but hey, let's go ahead and take the money for memberships and registrations. We all know there are some beautiful horses that went a tad over, that could have foals that mature under and could be great contributors to the AMHA gene pool.
> 
> ok, off to get my flame suit on!


No flames here! I would LOVE to see BOTH registries do that! THEN close the registry and we will become a BREED registry and not a HEIGHT one!

Lucy


----------



## minie812 (Nov 1, 2007)

Well, I had THOUGHT about showing nx year but after reading about WHO scratches WHO's back at the shows I think I will have second thoughts. Why waste the money. Pardon the phrase...The good ole' boy network rides again!


----------



## wildoak (Nov 1, 2007)

> I have stated (and this is only my personal opinion) that I would like to see a day come when an AMHA registered horse bred to an AMHA registered horse begets an AMHA registered horse regardless of height. The shows will limit the height to 34", but if you want to breed 50" AMHA horses, have a great time, they can never be shown, thus limiting their value as AMHA horses, but hey, let's go ahead and take the money for memberships and registrations. We all know there are some beautiful horses that went a tad over, that could have foals that mature under and could be great contributors to the AMHA gene pool.


Absolutely! I would love to see this happen.



> If I owned a very valuable horse that was actually 34",,, I'm notsure I would take that risk.


Agreed. I have no desire to scrunch my tall horses into a smaller height class, but for those borderline 34" horses it is a big risk.

Nationals/World is where this always comes to a head, but a big part of the problem as I see it is that these horses are allowed to show and measure in all year at local shows. Standards for measurement need to be consistent, from the local show all the way to nationals so we have no surprises and no one who has invested a year of training, showing and hauling only to be turned away at World.

The other side of the coin - and we've all seen it - is the senior horse who has shown and won in a particular height class, only to come to World and *incredibly has shrunk!!* A senior horse, with height on his papers should NOT be allowed to measure down. Period.

Jan


----------



## HGFarm (Nov 1, 2007)

I see the problems occur not only with AMHA, but R and other bigger pony breeds as well...

Unless the rule is stated SPECIFICALLY to something like this, and spelled out for some, it is not going to change.

'The horse shall be measured while standing squarely on a level surface. The toe of the front feet shall not be placed past the point of the shoulder, nor shall they be spread wider than the shoulder from the front. The heel of the rear feet shall not exceed past the point of the rear end and shall not be stretched wider than the hips. Neither the front nor the back legs shall be tucked under past the angle that the horse would normally stand'

That isnt perfect but you get the idea that unless it is spelled out exactly- it is going to continue, and then I am sure that someone will find a way to get one in. Just like the little old lady who sued McDonalds when she dumped hot coffee on herself and it burned- it was McDonalds fault cause they didnt TELL HER it was hot. Everything has to be spelled out now!!


----------



## faithfarm (Nov 1, 2007)

I remember Ed and Wade Burns calling the exhibitors together in 2001 at the show in Ocala to address the problem of measuring. This has been a problem for a long time.

As far as worrying about a 34" horse measuring wrong and having his papers pulled; if it is a legitimate 34" horse, you can protest your own horse and have it remeasured. Everyone knows how tall their horse is and my horses have never measured taller than they really were.

You can't blame the trainers, it is their job to take your horse and present them to their best ability and the upper-hand usually goes to the taller horses in a class. *The measurers have got to do the job they are paid to do*; measure the horse accurately. As far as protest goes, they are a good thing and AMHA gets more money. Problem is: someone in a class protests the horse they think will win, only to get beat by another horse that is too tall.


----------



## backwoodsnanny (Nov 1, 2007)

Well it would seem from reading all of this that the real issue isnt measuring per se but as in all competiton these days it boils down to MONEY. I too believe that horses should be AMHA or AMHR or both based on them being miniature horses as a breed not just based in height but am sure that is years from now if ever.

I do have a question though as it applies to measurement AMHA has an upper level of 34inches and AMHR has an upper level of 38 inches and ASPC starts the pony height at 40 inches what happens to the 39inch horse? off topic I know but I was curious.


----------



## ClickMini (Nov 1, 2007)

Well one thing is that Shetland is a breed, so any pony of that heritage is registerable ASPC. And as far as pony show classes go, they measure at the wither rather than the last mane hair. Probably would take up that inch difference.


----------



## targetsmom (Nov 1, 2007)

We don't show much AMHA and have never shown AMHR, but we show PtHA a lot. Here is what Pinto does with measuring minis and ponies: The miniature/pony is measured at the first show of the year AND THAT IS THEIR HEIGHT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. A form gets signed by the measurer , sent in to PtHA and the member receives a measurement card they use for that show season. For mature animals, they can get a permanent card once they have measured the same for 3 (I think) years in a row. We find it interesting that our 5 year old gelding has measured the exact same height in Pinto (without even trying) for 3 years in a row, but our yearling stallion once SHRANK 2 inches from one AMHA show to the next (different handlers). Oh, did I mention that at our Pinto shows the mini classes are not divided by height - there is JUST ONE HALTER CLASS. (Also, almost everyone shows in the performance classes and the shows seem to be getting more and more popular all the time).


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 1, 2007)

I got an interesting e-mail form Marianne Ebreth of Little King Farms this afternoon. I thought it was well written and also had some good thoughts in it. I ask her via email if I could post it and she said yes, but I had to be responsible for any heat it brought on me. OH! LOL Not sure I can handle that, but here it is anyway.





It seems that not only the little farms are concerned about the way things are going. Which is not how things are percieved by some. Thanks Marianne for a great e-mail.

*Email of 11/01/2007 sent to Cherryville Farms by Little King Farms *

When are the members of AMHA going to realize that they do not have a true genetic or true type "breed registry"? We have ONLY a height registry and not even a type to breed for. When are the members of AMHA going to realize that there is no other TRUE horse breed that measures from the base of the mane- last hair? Our forefathers decided as a compromise to make the base of the mane the measuring point and that the maximum is 34”. This is totally arbitrary and has no real conformational meaning when compared to ALL other true horse breeds. They ALL measure at the withers. Why do other breed registries measure at the withers? Answer-- Consistency and anatomical reference.

When are the members of AMHA going to realize that a miniature horse that measures 34.5" by and out of two 34" parents is still a miniature horse genetically? Or that two 29" horses can produce a 35" horse, two 35" horses can produce a 27"horse at maturity. Does eliminating these horrid oversized creatures make us a more credible association or a breed? Does measuring a horse at the base of the mane make our horses more valuable or are we just fooling ourselves into thinking our horses are smaller than they really are? A 30" horse just may be 31.5" and your 33.5 mare might be a 35" mare when properly measured. Why have we continued a tradition that has only complicated measuring and made it more difficult to control?

Measuring is a problem but it has been even more complicated by where we measure -- at some last hair- dyed or whatever. Universal measuring accepted by all other breeds has proven merit and can be part of the answer. Why does AMHA always think it knows better than ALL of the other breeds in the world? You can't dye a wither or change the bone where it is anatomically.

When are the members of AMHA going to realize that a very large percentage of their miniature horses under 30" and over 30" are carrying a dwarf gene and when you breed these two carriers they have a 25% chance of producing a dwarf. Therefore if we close the registry and eliminate our over 34" offspring that potentially are less likely to carry these genes, we will breed ourselves into “Dwarf-dom” very quickly- all horses could end up possibly carrying these genes. Now, you all don't like that thought at all-- but if this continues it is highly likely to happen. How do you think we got most of these very small horses? Open up your high school biology books and read about recessive genes.

Furthermore:

Why do owners and trainers cheat the current measuring system? To win--- no other reason- plain and simple. There are AMHA officers measuring AMHA officers’ horses even at the World show--- should that be allowed? I also recall a certain black and white stallion, permanently registered at 29.5" being shown and won in the 28 and under class at Worlds -- he was advertised in the World magazine as a 28-30" multiple Grand Champion and was Honor Roll in 28 to 30". That was a couple of years ago, how quickly certain trainers forget. How did that happen? The trainer either had another horse in the class or felt the horse had a better chance in the smaller class--- to win--- plain and simple. How did it happen? -- Well, we all know how that happens. Why do they video tape the measuring? Has anyone ever looked at it after the fact?

Why are AMHA members leaving AMHA and going to other associations? I am told, first hand, they are sick of the officers and directors of AMHA displaying and allowing blatant misconduct and rule violations, they all are tired of having to disclaim the over 34" offspring or hide the fact that they exist, they are tired of not having a steward system, and exasperated with the lack of professionalism of many trainers and directors.

About supply and demand: Breeding small horses with undesirably poor conformation and abnormalities is far more dangerous to the "breed" than breeding taller horses with better conformation and form to function genetics. Who said that a 35" or 36” horse is not as valuable as a 30" horse? Who said that a 35"+ horse isn't an asset to a breeding program? Who has not bred an over 34" horse and produced a very acceptable under 34” offspring? Are we breeding for quality or just small size? I can tell you for fact that our forefathers were just breeding for small size! The original name of the first miniature horse organization was the Midget Pony Association; ask Bud Soat or any those original breeders. Having been involved with "miniature horses" since 1976, I have seen the evolution from only breeding for small size to where we are now. Regardless of what our forefathers set forth, today is today and small is not our main objective now- so why should we think that 34" is an "untouchable or an unchangeable” limit.

Many of our registry’s founding forefathers of the 60’s and 70’s are the ones who bred for very small oddly conformed dwarf type creatures. Most of the miniatures of today came from this breeding stock. Without the Shetland pony genetics later brought into these original Midget Ponies, our "Miniature Horse" genetic pool would be very very small and certainly undesirable to a horseman.

I am appalled that even today there are those who denounce the Shetland blood in our "miniature horses". How do you think the American Quarter Horse breed was “made” in the late 1800’s, or the thoroughbred breed was “made”, or for that matter the Modern Shetland? One of the most successful breeds in the world openly promotes the progression and evolution needed to make a better breed, the Arabian horse. It openly shows it understands by allowing half-breeds to be registered, shown and bred, irregardless of “ideal” type for the pure-bred Arabian type that was desired.

Supply and demand is more relative to quality than numbers of horses on the market. Try breeding for quality, not size, and you will be amazed at how marketable your horses will be because basically the true horsemen is looking to improve genetics not just conform to a size limit and breed mediocrity.

Respectfully,

Marianne Eberth

Little King Farm


----------



## lvponies (Nov 1, 2007)




----------



## kaykay (Nov 1, 2007)

thank you so much Marianne, finally the voice of reason!

Kay


----------



## twelveoaks (Nov 1, 2007)

othic Medium]i just wonder if any of this would happen if it had been a "little person" with a horse that did not threaten any one


----------



## Reble (Nov 1, 2007)




----------



## MountainMeadows (Nov 1, 2007)

Well said Marianne - as a breeder who truly believes in FORM & FUNCTION, I also believe that with our current trend of our horses being USED rather than just lawn art, that the height of the horse is going to be a continued point of contention -- a horse CANNOT be truly functional - at the top of it's game WITHOUT a whither. Those breeders of the past who also bred a horse with basically a neck that tied into the back with hardly a whither at all, also doomed that animal to moving with virtually NO reach - as the performance classes continue to grow by leaps and bounds the competition will naturally be drawn to horses that can perform - and those animals WILL have a whither - and that whither will add height.


----------



## Hosscrazy (Nov 1, 2007)

A voice of reason! How wonderfully refreshing!!!!!











Liz R.


----------



## Vertical Limit (Nov 1, 2007)

I AGREE....THANK YOU MARIANNE... and hope others "really read" what Marianne has taken the time to write.

And from some other posts...........

To those stewards or measurers who don't know where the withers are? I suggest you find another job because I find that incredibly ______!



(fill in the blank)

Gee.......can a shoe salesman find a foot?


----------



## sfmini (Nov 1, 2007)

I got that email from Marianne as well. My response back to her will basically say, yes, I agree with what you are saying, but it cannot happen until someone sits down and writes up a correct and comprehensive set of rule change proposals. It has been tried before, but the submitter, Robin Mingione did not include changes to ALL rules and bylaws that speak of the 34" horse. The proposal died in committee and went no further and can't until the bylaw changes as well as all other references to the 34" limit are addressed.

You know, it is great, all of these ideas, but the changes cannot happen until one of the members submits the proposed changes. You can get the forms from the AMHA website, so get them, and send them in so they can be discussed at the annual meeting.

The board cannot just willy nilly change rules, that is to protect the membership from a small group of people controlling the entire organization. YOU, the members control what will happen, and you can talk all you want, but unless someone gets off their behind and puts the proposal in writing and submits it, nothing can happen.


----------



## Vertical Limit (Nov 1, 2007)

sfmini said:


> YOU, the members control what will happen, and you can talk all you want, but unless someone gets off their behind and puts the proposal in writing and submits it, nothing can happen.


Bless you Jody......I can only imagine how tired you are of posting the same thing time and time again. Year after year the same old "stuff". It just gets old.


----------



## sfmini (Nov 1, 2007)

Thank you for that, it is very dis-heartening at times. OH!


----------



## Dontworrybeappy (Nov 1, 2007)

Yaay Marianne! My thoughts exactly!


----------



## Millstone Farm (Nov 1, 2007)

You can't tell me that all trainers don't know exactly how tall the horses in their barns really are, regardless of what they measure at shows. If they don't, they aren't doing their jobs very well.

Trust me, I know how arbitrary measuring can be -- that's why I measure all the horses on my show string constantly. One horse might measure small at one show, only to be as much as an inch taller at the next (nerves, cold temps, etc.). Before my entries are sent in, I measure my horses.

I can't imagine what it would be like to send a horse with a trainer, pay entries and training fees all year, only to discover at the World show that your horse is too tall to measure.

I wouldn't blame the measurer --- i'd place blame at the person who was hired to present my horse - my trainer. If the trainer didn't know exactly how tall my horse is, I'd have some serious issues with all the money I had spent all year.

Yes, games are played at the local shows -- horses are stretched or front legs are splayed. It even happens at the World Show, that is until someone said ENOUGH.

I can only wonder how many new owners are turned off after spending thousands and thousands in training fees and entries (not to mention the cost of buying a fancy show horse) only to have that horse trucked all the way to Ft.Worth for nothing!

I watched a little of the measuring of protested horses. There were so many people there watching, i can'timagine any horse was relaxed to measure properly. But then again, if they were where they belonged, they wouldn't have been protested.

And yes, I'm tired of having my horses measure tall and just make whatever height class they are in, only to see othe rhorses TOWER over them. My little 28" yearling just made 28" this year. I think he was one of the smallest in his height class. Go figure!


----------



## miniwhinny (Nov 1, 2007)

kaykay said:


> ughhh i guess i am not being understood.
> 
> How can AMHA say nothing over 34" is a Miniature Horse and yet *NAME NATIONAL CHAMPIONS THAT ARE OVER 34"!!! *
> 
> ...


Are you serious ? ! The more I learn about the politics of registries and showing...the more I LOVE not wanting to be a big wheel in mini's



Could you please let me know who these horses are. Thank you, It's not that I care about the size..it's the hypocracy


----------



## Kitty (Nov 1, 2007)

If any of you haven't had the pleasure of a serious conversation with the Eberths you should. There isn't a one that is not a wealth of knowledge regarding the Miniature horse and horses in general. AW heck about alot of things.





Very interesting letter, Marianne and I am glad you took the time to write it. I have saved all information that I have been lucky enough to gather from them thru the years. I often mentioned they should write a book and they should



. I would be the first in line to buy it.

I am happy that our breed is progressing for the better. I as a breeder am constantly working toward a more beautiful and athletic animal. I welcome the infusion of Shetlands as they add that beautiful movement and refinement that many Miniatures need and heck ever try to bred your QH stud to a miniature. (OK joking there



)

I hope that AMHA will take a look with open eyes at what is being said about measuring and those who do the measuring. We need to have consistency with ALL members and better yet with both registeries. And not a leaching mob with certain horses, owners or trainers. And certain people need to remember their past and not toss rocks as those rocks have a way of coming back and hitting you in between the eyes.

I have no problem measuring my horses at the withers and nicely squared up. My thoughts are a beautiful horse is a beautiful horse and heck that is why we have AMHR for those horses that are alittle taller. Too bad AMHA can't do the same thing.


----------



## nootka (Nov 1, 2007)

> When are the members of AMHA going to realize that a very large percentage of their miniature horses under 30" and over 30" are carrying a dwarf gene


Interesting thoughts on this letter as a whole.

I wonder, though, will the dishonest people who are promoting these horses truly tell us what the heights are, if the stakes (a/k/a the height restrictions) are taken away?

It would be nice if people could be honest about the true heights, but it seems to be a matter of greed as well as some type of power trip with some people.

Enough about blackballing the "little guy" how about we all just blackball these losers that are trying to run the show?

It's really interesting to me how certain people have a real following and fan club even though they are clearly manipulating the rules for their own gain, regardless of what it costs the people who are playing BY the rules. It's like they are trying to say to all of us that no matter what rules we try to make, they will break them just because they can.

Don't buy their horses, don't use their (trainers) services, etc. ??

It's not THAT big of an industry/world.

While I might agree that some of these horses being forced down into smaller height divisions to give them an edge or just make them legal, what I am completely angered about is the level of lying, the affront they seem to want to keep after, when they are called on their bluff. I would far rather see most of these horses (the protested ones) being used for breeding than the little squashed dwarfy things that people think are perfectly fine to sell to uninformed people, or just perpetuationg a misconception.

I would love to see us measure at the withers. Even if it meant all my horses lost their A and Under papers.

I may just quit doing certain aspects of the registries' activities, as it would be a huge loss to me, even at just 6 horses. What would make me feel good is to see them pursue a legitimate measuring point before we start to go after the cheaters.

There ARE a few rules in place, but without the measure to the withers, we are fighting an unwinnable war.

Liz M.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Nov 2, 2007)

There is NO reason for measuring at the withers to mean loss of standing papers- permanent or temporary.

It is quiet simple, it is called an "Amnesty" and would apply, if it were implemented now- ie tomorrow, until 2012, that would take in all horses already registered.

An upper height limit of say 36" would be put in place for these horses and they would be allowed to be registered and shown, in their own height classes, until another cut off date, at which time the "overheight" classes would cease.

Their height would be put on their papers.

If the AMHA and AMHR are going to have temporary papers they need to actually DO something for the fee they charge for upgrading, like for example measuring all the horses so people do not just quietly put 33" on the papers and retire the horse to the breeding paddock at three years old- we are not stupid that happens time and time again and we all KNOW it!!!

We do have problems measuring over here which is exactly why all but The BMHS have opted out of measuring altogether- and consequently have 36" horses in the 34" classes- but measuring to the withers is the way forward if we want to be accepted by the rest of the horse world.

At the moment we are "those little dwarf freaks that measure to the dip in the back to make them smaller"

We can cope with the "dwarf freaks" bit just by proving them wrong- the more they see of good sound horses the more they support us.

We have no answer to the measuring problem until it is sorted out.

But, you all KNOW, it never will be whilst the registries are run by people with a vested interest in horses staying "in the book" at a certain height.

Basically, until you get politics out of government.

Good Luck with that one!!!


----------



## Debby - LB (Nov 2, 2007)

I don't see the current problem going away by changing the measuring from the last hair of the mane to the withers; it's not going to happen.

BUT measuring at the top of the withers really should be phased in, eons ago the miniature horse didn't have a visible or palpable wither...why do you think this way of measuring was put into place to start with?

I do highly agree with Jody about this and also the solution for AMHA oversize horses.

In todays electronic age actually a computer generated measuring solution could become a reality.

I also feel that an outside source should be doing the measuring and no trainer or owner should be allowed to handle the horse at measuring time.

I've read most all of this thread and wish I were as articulate as some of you, I'd love to be able to explain what I want to say in more depth and will try.

I would like to say (or try to so excuse non proper English)... folks, all of you so adamant about pointing out the difference in how the taller horses look and what nice genetics they can bring.. We already have a registry that allows them, it is AMHR they have a A division and a B division, why do you insist on pushing them on the AMHA registry?

AMHA has set their standard to 34 and under, according to AMHA rules yes one who is 35" is not legitimately a miniature horse (as defined in the rules). If the horse is double registered it is still considered a miniature horse B division and you know what? When you go over 38"....accept it and get a saddle.

AMHA breeders who are trying to stay within the rules are trying to *slowly bring the same look you are into the registry to fit within the standards of AMHA perfection.* This is what this association is about, AND it will take more years than I will live to accomplish this. These are the horses to me who are the most desirable as an AMHA registered miniature horse, the ones who are tiny and proportioned and leggy looking. Using the taller horses and weeding out the dwarfism genetics takes time.

Those of you who want instant gratification are now are trying to push your nice taller horses, who you have worked so hard to improve into a registry that would have to be changed to accommodate them, shame on you.

It is the people who have all these taller horses who are making the most noise, why do YOU not think that AMHR is not good enough for your horses to stand alone with?

People let AMHA evolve, give it a chance. One day the look of these same oversize national champions will be consistant in a under 34" horse and WOW what a day to see that happen.


----------



## Boinky (Nov 2, 2007)

it is NOT ok for an over 34 AMHA horse to win at worlds..... not sure why you feel that it is ok to cheat to get that larger blood? that is not the proper way to infuse the more refined or horsier looking blood. why don't they just open the books for X amount of time to allow that larger blood with that nice looks to infuse the bloodlines?? at least that's a LEGAL way of doing it. Instead they are allowing horses that are over 34 to be WORLD CHAMPIONS!??! how is that right? it's NOT !! They are LIEING AND CHEATING to get that blood then saying we are wrong in trying to get the AMHA to allow over horses in? shame on AMHA management who allows it and seems to even promote it and shame on the trainers and measurers who participate! it's NOT JUST amha though that has problems.. but i don't agree with leaving AMHA alone to lie and cheat to get the larger blood but the larger horses aren't allowed to be legally registered by people that are honest.


----------



## runamuk (Nov 2, 2007)

Jody,

Is there a way that Robin's original proposal could be reworked to address the other issues? or Would an entirely new proposal need to be written?

As for the legitamicy of over horses, I agree that if AMHA wants to legitimize the REGISTRY they need to have a place for these horses. With DNA and PQ it makes no sense to say "just because of height" this horse doesn't count. The bloodlines are AMHA, the DNA is AMHA but the horse is not?






there is no credibility. Either AMHA is a BREED registry or it is a HEIGHT association, if it is height then hardshipping cannot be closed because supposedly any horse under 34 qualifies.

Maybe that is another area to address does the membership actually want to become a BREED registry?


----------



## Robin (Nov 2, 2007)

_"I got that email from Marianne as well. My response back to her will basically say, yes, I agree with what you are saying, but it cannot happen until someone sits down and writes up a correct and comprehensive set of rule change proposals. It has been tried before, but the submitter, Robin Mingione did not include changes to ALL rules and bylaws that speak of the 34" horse. The proposal died in committee and went no further and can't until the bylaw changes as well as all other references to the 34" limit are addressed._

You know, it is great, all of these ideas, but the changes cannot happen until one of the members submits the proposed changes. You can get the forms from the AMHA website, so get them, and send them in so they can be discussed at the annual meeting.

The board cannot just willy nilly change rules, that is to protect the membership from a small group of people controlling the entire organization. YOU, the members control what will happen, and you can talk all you want, but unless someone gets off their behind and puts the proposal in writing and submits it, nothing can happen."

Dear Ms. Director- as per your quote above.... Why do we have Directors? Are we not supposed to be voting in people as Directors who understand the channels of the association and how to properly submit and debate the interests of their constituents? Yes- I banged my head up against the wall 2 years in a row with my proposal - with no help from my directors. When I found out that the AMHA had misprinted my proposal in the World- I proceeded to sit with each committee at the National Meeting in Florida and discuss, correct and add all the amendments that needed to change in order to add a breeding stock of over 34" horses to the AMHA. I never sat with you or nor did you ask if I needed any help nor did any of my other Directors. It isn't like I was the only one for it. I went with hundreds of letters and e-mails agreeing with the need and want for the proposal. The committess can only help in AMHA to a degree- they are not allowed to change the proposal - they either say yes it can be voted on as read or no it is not possible or correct in all the necessary rules that it applies and they kick it out and it is not heard by the members at the meeting.

Jody- were you in Florida at the National Meeting? My proposal was heard by the members in Florida- I stood up and discussed why I felt as many others the need for it. Mr. Ed Sisk and Ron Scheuring stood up and disagreed. It did not pass. I was shocked to see many people change their votes once they had an audience looking at them from when it was discussed in e-mails and letters that they were in agreement with the proposal. It was very simple and to the point- basically... "Any foal born that matures over 34" but is out of 2 AMHA registered horses under 34", can keep their registration papers- however - be deemed for breeding purposes only." AMHA was in a financial slump at the time- we sure could have used those permanent registration $$$ in stead of them going to AMHR. We sure could use the registration $$$ out of the foals that they can produce- that can just as likely be under 34" at maturity as they can be over. We sure could use the $$$ when these horses are transferred. We sure could use the genetics of the taller horses so we don't breed ourselves into "Dwarf-dom"!

Anyway- my point is...... I am tired of banging my head against the wall with the politics of AMHA. I am tired of Directors not doing anything to help the members and make proposals for what their constituents want. It isn't just you Jody- it appears to be almost all of them when you talk to the members who are not politically involved themselves. They feel they have no voice. And I am sorry- but going to the National meeting doesn't fix it- you only get to vote on what the committees want to get thru- they dont help the members make their proposals correct in the fashion they want it to be- they don't take the time prior to the National Meeting to discuss with the people who submit them to be sure they are correct according to the rules and bylaws. I am not the only one who has tried to make changes that have been unsuccessful.

As my Mother has always said- "Let them make the rules and just play the game." My father was the AMHA President and a Director. My parents have been involved with the politics and they are tired of it. I thought being young and with a lot of history behind me, I could try. I learned quickly why my parents said to heck with the politics. You know- I think AMHR is the answer- But it is unfortunate to see AMHA dwindle into Drawf-dom after 30 years of supporting it. We have produced and won many, many National and World Champion AMHA horses- including the smallest to date National Grand Champion Senior Stallion- Little Kings Buck Echo- 28.25". At least AMHR appreciates the 30+ years my mom has put into her breeding program and doesn't de-value it completely for a 1/4" measured by some unqualified or unliscensed measurer.

Robin Mingione -LKF


----------



## Buckskin gal (Nov 2, 2007)

Debby, I think you said it very well






This is pretty much how I feel about the situation also. The ones who have been working hard at breeding for small AND good conformation are to be commended. They have come a long way in producing some gorgeous small minis. The choice is needed....either breed for the tall ones or breed for the small ones. The small ones may be more of a challenge but all the more reason for giving credit to the ones who work so hard at it. Personally, I love both for different reasons, as long as they have nice conformation and great dispositions. I do hope both registeries get their acts together and do a better job of measuring and doing business for they both need improvement. Mary



Debby said:


> I don't see the current problem going away by changing the measuring from the last hair of the mane to the withers; it's not going to happen.
> 
> BUT measuring at the top of the withers really should be phased in, eons ago the miniature horse didn't have a visible or palpable wither...why do you think this way of measuring was put into place to start with?
> 
> ...


----------



## Mona (Nov 2, 2007)

> Anyway- my point is...... I am tired of banging my head against the wall with the politics of AMHA. I am tired of Directors not doing anything to help the members and make proposals for what their constituents want. It isn't just you Jody- it appears to be almost all of them when you talk to the members who are not politically involved themselves. They feel they have no voice. And I am sorry- but going to the National meeting doesn't fix it- you only get to vote on what the committees want to get thru- they dont help the members make their proposals correct in the fashion they want it to be- they don't take the time prior to the National Meeting to discuss with the people who submit them to be sure they are correct according to the rules and bylaws. I am not the only one who has tried to make changes that have been unsuccessful.


I also agree with the above quote by Robin. It's not a personal attack towards any one person, but instead, a valid statement. Overall, I would think that the Directors SHOULD be helping with such things to ensure they ARE in the correct format, and that all bases required by AMHA for such a proposal ARE included and in order to be presented to the board.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Nov 2, 2007)

Very well said, Robin, very well said indeed!!!

And Debby

."..why do you think this way of measuring was put into place to start with? "

Because some Directors wanted the limit at 36" because their horses would not measure under 34" to the withers-others wanted the limit set at 34" so they compromised and put it at what at the time was half way down the back and the over-height horses measured in!!!

Obviously.


----------



## HGFarm (Nov 2, 2007)

It does NOT MATTER where the horse is measured from- the withers or the last of the mane hair, there are folks that are going to cheat and squabble!! Other breeds measure to the withers and they have the SAME PROBLEM!!!!

It is not just the measurers either. I have seen 'trainers' and some of the 'important' people flat get in their face when a horse was not measuring in right to the 'right class'. The folks doing the measuring are really in the 'hot seat' when it comes to this.

It is all about winning, money and greed. Makes it not so fun for others of us who like to show and have a good time.

Many years ago the Appaloosa Horse Club didnt allow non colored horses to compete at anything. They were breeding stock only. Some of the big breeders and big guys in the 'business' decided that since they paid thousands of dollars to breed to a champion QH or TB and got a solid foal- oh dear, they are losing on this investment, so they changed the rules to allow horses without visible color to show. More and more solids started to appear on the scene and the breed was quickly losing one of the things it was noted for- their color.

My personal opinion is, this is all the result of the 'Good Ol' Boys' club, where you play by THEIR rules, and keep your mouth shut, or out you go!!!


----------



## minie812 (Nov 2, 2007)

I know I am new at this. It is so disheartning to see how much dishonesty is going on in AMHA. I used to raise and show Great Danes and when I moved to the midwest from Ohio with my eastern dogs, people came from all over the state to look at my first litter (and to bash the bloodlines) I could not win in the local level (the judge also had his dogs in the shows & they always won, but when I took them to a bigger show -guess what? They beat out his dogs- I put to much time & money into them and just quit showing because everyone was afraid of being blackballed(including me) & going against this guy. It happens everywhere not just in the dog world but it sure discourages me from wanting to show or be involved again in showing. How can an organization stay in business when they will not POLICE their own people. Outside independent measureing would be a step in the right direction & AMHA should be glad to do it!


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Nov 2, 2007)

I ABSOLUTELY agree that wherever you measure to the problem will be the same.

It's just that if all this is being sorted out, sorting out the place they are measured to at the same time would seem to be logical.

But I agree it will not make the problem go away on it's own.

We have always measured to the withers and we still have enormous arguments over measuring.

I loved the comment about "if it goes over 38" ...get a saddle!!!"


----------



## Debby - LB (Nov 2, 2007)

rabbitsfizz said:


> Very well said, Robin, very well said indeed!!!
> 
> And Debby
> 
> ...


Why? Because it had to be somewhere and the height was set at 34" at a place they I'm sure agonized over...... way back then you'd be hard pressed to find a way to measure a miniature at the withers. Now there are many nice withered horses, look in the old magazines at the mutton withered, high butts. How the heck would a height registry make the rule to measure at the wither? when you couldn't find it?

Actually I thought the rule said "measured at the withers at the last hair of the mane"? Well I've always measured mine at the highest part of the wither. Maybe we just need to measure at the highest point of the BUTT! lots less to get in the way there, lots less subjective than adding hair and dying it.

And Robin not picking on you and yours but it all goes back to your needs being self serving, what registry are you all going to go to when you breed yourself out of the AMHR B division? It has to stop somewhere AMHA is 34 AMHR is 38. If you like the larger horses keep them in AMHR until you can breed them down to the AMHA size. I'm sure that in trying to get that nice leg under the horses you were not intending to breed oversize horses but it's happening, this is what makes the under 34 horse so special..the ones who actually stay under. What is so hard about realizing that some of those horses won't meet the AMHA standard?

All this comes up almost every year. So who is going to fix it? We have a forum here, we have the registries voice right here. We have people here who work within AMHA, who work for AMHA but yet were building a group standing ready to take it over and save it, to me it wouldn't need saving if the same people were working as hard to implement the standing rules.

What is so darn hard about measuring a little horse and if it goes over height realizing that you did not meet the standard? It's a LITTLE HORSE people it's not hard to do this. Until WE find someone who will help change the measuring process this will keep going on.


----------



## Belinda (Nov 2, 2007)

> Jody- were you in Florida at the National Meeting? My proposal was heard by the members in Florida- I stood up and discussed why I felt as many others the need for it. Mr. Ed Sisk and Ron Scheuring stood up and disagreed. It did not pass. I was shocked to see many people change their votes once they had an audience looking at them from when it was discussed in e-mails and letters that they were in agreement with the proposal. It was very simple and to the point- basically... "Any foal born that matures over 34" but is out of 2 AMHA registered horses under 34", can keep their registration papers- however - be deemed for breeding purposes only." AMHA was in a financial slump at the time- we sure could have used those permanent registration $$$ in stead of them going to AMHR. We sure could use the registration $$$ out of the foals that they can produce- that can just as likely be under 34" at maturity as they can be over. We sure could use the $$$ when these horses are transferred. We sure could use the genetics of the taller horses so we don't breed ourselves into "Dwarf-dom"!
> Anyway- my point is...... I am tired of banging my head against the wall with the politics of AMHA. I am tired of Directors not doing anything to help the members and make proposals for what their constituents want. It isn't just you Jody- it appears to be almost all of them when you talk to the members who are not politically involved themselves. They feel they have no voice. And I am sorry- but going to the National meeting doesn't fix it- you only get to vote on what the committees want to get thru- they dont help the members make their proposals correct in the fashion they want it to be- they don't take the time prior to the National Meeting to discuss with the people who submit them to be sure they are correct according to the rules and bylaws. I am not the only one who has tried to make changes that have been unsuccessful


Robin,

You have made some outstanding points. And as to your proposal we have tried to get that voted on several times. It just boggle's my brain how in AMHA when two parents have a offspring that ends up going over the almighty 34" it becomes worthless in the Powers that Be Eyes !!!!



But that same foal might have two or 3 full siblings that measure under 34" and they are great !! ??? How can that be?? Wake up people how do you justify that .



Why not have a over 34" breeding stock division if you do not want to show them. Heck some of my over division mares I can not get a foal over 34" out of and that is with me trying to get the over division .. And guess what I bet I am not the only one that has mares that are 35" but will not produce a foal over 34", but yet you want to throw those mares away so to speak ! OH! OH!

And Robin I as a director for AMHR have tried to help members reword or rework their proposals if there was a problem with them and the committee did not think they would fly as it was.. But also in AMHR when a proposal is read on the floor , and discussed if the person who submitted the proposal is there, they have the option of reworking it to make it work for everyone if that is what the membership wants, sometimes it takes just changing one word..








And as to how your Mom and Dad feel about the politics in AMHA






I too have been there with them , and my feeling's are much the same.. You feel like anymore when you try and offer up any ideas, or thoughts if it not their way of thinking they do this.. just











I very much feel that there is more than enough room for both Assoc. and my hope is someday that we can all work together for the betterment of these small equine that we all share in common .

One last thing , to those that say that it is to hard or impossible to find the withers on the Mini's that is not True !! As all horses have withers, some may just be less prominent than others but they are there..

On my shetlands that I show , I have lots of people measure them and no matter who are where I have never had my ponies measure more than a 1/8" to 1/4" different and that is because the wither is the same


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 2, 2007)

Robin,

there is one thing about you girl, you are not afraid to get right in there and say what is on your mind. LOL





As you know sometimes you and I do not agree on some points, but I always have respected you for speaking your mind. Keep it up, please.





As far as the changes in measuring rules are concerned you and I both know that any time the BOD decides there is a need for a change to any rule/regulation. They have the ability to declare it an emergency and change the rule or regulation without the approval of the general membership.

We have seen this used on much more trivial problems and I would think that if it was truly of importance to the BOD and/or Executive Board they would address it in a manner to move forward with changes whatever they might be in the rules, practices etc.. Personally I like the breeding only proposal you made.

On another point, while they are indeed some stewards that measure according to who and what people ask for (ie: can you put this horse in the 32 & under class?). There also some others that do *as good a job as they are allowed to by the show management*. But everyone involved in the show circut has seen mangement go to stewarts at different times and tell them to be accomodating to the exhibitors so as not to impact the attendance at future shows. It sucks, but is a fact of life.

Untill that changes this problem will never be rectified. One thing I can assure you though when our group puts on the "Ultimate Event" in April of next year, the measuring will be correct and honest. If someone's horse measures out so be it, we will be video taping the measuring, have a founding member present along with the stewart at every measuring period and attempt to do it right. I wish we could use the wickets etc. like we wanted to but as AMHR & AMHA sanctioned shows we have to follow the rules as written for both registries.

Last but not least, you BOD members that are reading this, please do not think that I do not appreciate the work most of you do for the associations with no pay. The majority of you are good folks that went into the office hoping to do some good. I realize that it is indeed frustrating many times when you can't get things done that you want to or feel that should be done. Please continue to try and make the decisions that you feel are best for the majority of the members. And Please push the issues, whatever they may be so to speak. If you can accomplish that then you will have the respect of the majority of the rest of us. we may complain from time to time in order to bring certain issues to the forefront, but it will not done as a personal affront or with malice towards you personally. Sometimes we may just agree to disagree. LOL


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Nov 2, 2007)

Well I have to say I dont see much difference in those that work very hard to proudce the correct and balanced little ones (in this conversation meaning 34 and under) do they work any less hard when they have a foal that is now 34.50 or was he an easy one to come by? Who decided it was more difficult to get the 33.75 in correct horse then the 34.50 horse?????

LEts be honest there are icky horses in all height divisions including up to 17-18 hands. So all breeders work equally as hard (or have some great luck) when it comes to putting out a nice, correct balanced horse.

I dont think it is any harder to do with a 31 in horse then it is a 17 hand horse. Bottom line is you have to start with parents that are correct and balanced and then hope the rest falls into place. Same issue of genetics working with or against you no matter what size or breed the horse.

IF the gene pool for you to choose from is less in size then other size horses well.. that doesnt mean you do better it means.. some other breeders chose to not care about anything other then size - no different then color breeders in big horses dealing with those who only bred for color ect...

Now of course 34 and under was the size that AMHA decided to go with that part we all know- measuring will never be truly fair that part we all know- nothing in life is ever truly fair... another thing we all know

AMHR has those issues as well but to be perfectly honest.. when my horse doesnt win a class I dont say OMG it is cause that horse next to me was one inch bigger then her it was simply cause on that day in that moment that horse looked better then mine give or take that one inch -- that horse next to me being one inch shorter surely would not have made my horse look any better in the ring or made me present her better or made her behave better or made her give her neck at that presicse moment the judge was looking.



( I have always wished I could yell HEY JUDGe LOOK NOW - SEE NOW SHE LOOKS GREAT) since they always seem to look good as the judge moves on to the horse next to me..





I think the bottom line is this comes to a breed or a height registry there are pros and cons to each but no matter what method is used to measure there will always be conversations like this cause someone felt it was unfair or someone else found a secret way around the method. Such as life...

IF AMHA wants to DNA and PQ and all of that stuff as if they were a BREED registry then they need to follow the rest thru otherwise really what difference does it make if you really think about it??

Your PQ,d DNA'd TRUE MINIATURE (in there words) is now... useless and illigetimate... even though he has PQ'd to be out of other legitmate stock.. simply due to 1/4 inch..

Just never made sense to me


----------



## Robin (Nov 2, 2007)

_"And Robin not picking on you and yours but it all goes back to your needs being self serving, what registry are you all going to go to when you breed yourself out of the AMHR B division? It has to stop somewhere AMHA is 34 AMHR is 38. If you like the larger horses keep them in AMHR until you can breed them down to the AMHA size. I'm sure that in trying to get that nice leg under the horses you were not intending to breed oversize horses but it's happening, this is what makes the under 34 horse so special..the ones who actually stay under. What is so hard about realizing that some of those horses won't meet the AMHA standard?"_

Debby- It isn't a matter of breeding for oversized or being self serving- it is called genetics- obviously you haven't produced many foals - at least numbers wise. We are talking about a breed- not height. Are we a breed? We - at Little King Farm breed for a breed type- we do not breed for height. I have horses that are only AMHR registered, only ASPC registered, only ASHR and many that are double and triple papered. We breed to fit type and quality- where they end up is where they end up height wise. If they fit into AMHA- we hardship them if need be. AMHA is only height- there is no type in AMHA. There is no type in AMHR- if it fits in height great- if not- oh well. Both registries have a dwarf issue- that again is a breed issue- oh but the miniature horse isn't a breed.

Yes- when you breed for type and quality- you do produce horses of different heights. I have a Buck Echo daughter whose sire is 28.25" and a mother that is 32" and it is over 34"- well over. Do you think I knew that was going to happen? I had a 25% chance genetically- that it would go over, I had a 75% chance it wouldn't - so what do I do? I have 3 full siblings all between 29-31". HUMMMMM. I guess I should stick with AMHR then. I personally don't want to breed down to the dwarf size. I try to produce the best horse that I can at whatever height it ends up.

We are not arguing about height here- it is breed credibility...... oh but there is no "miniautre horse breed".

As usual the AMHA tries to re-invent the wheel and act so almighty when in the big picture of the horse industry AMHA is a speck of the population. Let's get real here- you can't change bone- you can't make them shrink. And for those of you who think the "old miniatures" didn't have a wither- well that is ludicrous. If they anatomically did not have a wither, they were not a horse. Withers are located at the top of the shoulder- some horses are more predominat than others- but it doesn't mean they don't have one. Some of the "old miniatures" are still alive today- why don't you check them out- Buckeroo is 30 years old in May- he has one of the most predominant withers you can find- oh but I forgot- he is nothing but a small shetland pony. Buckeroo is 30.5" he has produced over 34" foals bred to under 34" horses. I didn't know trying to breed for quality and wanting to see good genetics kept as breedable stock to perpetuate the quality of the "breed" was considered self serving- I thought just the opposite.

Robin-LKF


----------



## Jag and Inti's Mom (Nov 2, 2007)

I am sorry, but all of this hubbub is one of the reasons I choose not to go to AMHA shows. There is always some controversey and always someone sneaking in. I am not saying that it doesn't happen in other venues, but you can usually guarantee something "slick" going on at the AMHA shows. I have four horses 2 are under 34 and two are over. I have never tried to sneak an over horse in but have seen many others do so. I have also seen/know of "trainers" that have clipped a horses feet to the point of them being lame, and then iced them down, just to get into a class. I would rather not participate in an event that pushes people to that extent. Get honest in your measuring, and in your showing.


----------



## runamuk (Nov 2, 2007)

Robin said:


> _"And Robin not picking on you and yours but it all goes back to your needs being self serving, what registry are you all going to go to when you breed yourself out of the AMHR B division? It has to stop somewhere AMHA is 34 AMHR is 38. If you like the larger horses keep them in AMHR until you can breed them down to the AMHA size. I'm sure that in trying to get that nice leg under the horses you were not intending to breed oversize horses but it's happening, this is what makes the under 34 horse so special..the ones who actually stay under. What is so hard about realizing that some of those horses won't meet the AMHA standard?"_
> 
> Debby- It isn't a matter of breeding for oversized or being self serving- it is called genetics- obviously you haven't produced many foals - at least numbers wise. We are talking about a breed- not height. Are we a breed? We - at Little King Farm breed for a breed type- we do not breed for height. I have horses that are only AMHR registered, only ASPC registered, only ASHR and many that are double and triple papered. We breed to fit type and quality- where they end up is where they end up height wise. If they fit into AMHA- we hardship them if need be. AMHA is only height- there is no type in AMHA. There is no type in AMHR- if it fits in height great- if not- oh well. Both registries have a dwarf issue- that again is a breed issue- oh but the miniature horse isn't a breed.
> 
> ...


I completely agree. Either the miniature horse is a BREED or its not. If it is not then why all the DNA and PQ...who cares so long as it is under 34. And if it is then all DNA and PQ horses regardless of height ARE miniature horses.

AMHA cannot have its cake and eat it too.....


----------



## sfmini (Nov 2, 2007)

You are right, I do need to step up and be more proactive with the members I represent. Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania. I will own that one. BUT. My phone and email and fax remain totally silent as far as members wanting help or to ask a question, and I would never limit contact or assistance to any member based on their geographic location. Hello, I am not a mind reader. I do promise to devote more time to reviewing the proposals that members are submitting to committees for the next meeting and will contact submitters with questions if I have them.

If I had tried to help you with your proposal, I probably would have gotten it wrong in Florida, as I don't know the nuances of the bylaw change process and the timing game you have to play to get them changed before you get the regular rules changed, so I would have screwed you up. The committee chairs are the people who are the experts in their part of the rulebook and are the ones to help. The vote against your changes if I remember correctly, and I have to say I was having a bunch of trouble hearing and knee pain and was very distracted..... anyway, that vote was because the rule changes would have been in violation of the bylaws and there wasn't a proposal in place for them.

I am not expert in these parts of AMHA, so I have for the most part buried myself in the computer woes, an area where I am expert and comfortable in making my opinions heard.

You know, though, after a phone conversation I had with a friend, I do have to say our woes as far as the 'cheating' in the show arena are pretty small compared with other breeds. This friend has a friend who is extemely high up in US Equestrian drug testing. Wow. That conversation was an eye opener. How about this? a 1/4 horse died at a show recently of botulism. Well, I said, that happens. Oh no. People are INJECTING their 1/4 horses with BOTOX to 'sculpt' their bodies. Guess they haven't yet figured out what is a toxic fatal level. Or, you all remember the famous saddlebreds that died hideous deaths that supposedly were done by someone breaking into the property? It seems that COBRA VENOM is used to get the extra lick in stride. She gave more examples, but I was still just stunned at these. How sad that when money and competition is involved there are people who will do anything to win and darn the animals and the consequences. I sure do hope we never get to that point!

All I am saying is while I am sad that such crap goes on, I am glad that at least so far we don't have (or at least not that we know about) that kind of crap.


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Nov 2, 2007)

IMO the Mini is not yet a breed.

If it were not for the height there is NO way you could point at a horse and say, as you can , for example of an Arab, and say "that is a Miniature Horse"

There is absolutely no consistency of type.

And, they way things are going, there never will be.

If the book is closed- so what??

It will not make a breed out of an animal that has only one thing in common with the others in it's registry- namely it's height.

Keep it as a height registry, that is where it belongs.

And as to the horse of thirty years ago not having withers??

Absolute RUBBISH Rabbit is one year behind Buckeroo and I have NO problem finding his withers at all, mainly, I feel, because I know where to look!!

The height was set at the "last hair of the mane" for the reasons I stated- I was not being cynical or sarcastic I was telling you a fact!!!

It meant the horses that were overheight at the withers got in the book, simple as that.

Those days should be long gone, time to join the real world and measure accurately.

Never going to happen, though.

Robin I agree with almost all the points you have made, I understand your frustration and your anger, believe me.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 2, 2007)

Just had to input that for most of us (that own the ASPC/AMHR OR AMHA/AMHR/ASPC ) an AMHR horse that goes over 38" is an American Shetland Pony





I couldnt agree with Robin more and I have to say its scary to me that a family like hers that has been in this industry for this amount of time cant get a change made then who can?

And one more thing I only own one horse that has some Buckeroo breeding but I still have to say that Little King Farm has produced some of the most consistent horses in "type" of any farm I know

Oh one more thing. *Jodi is the ONLY director that has ever replied to my questions AMHA OR AMHR. In all these years the ONLY ONE!! * thank you jodi!

Kay


----------



## HGFarm (Nov 2, 2007)

I also agree with Robin in regards to breeding for QUALITY and where they fall, they fall. I also TRY to breed for under 34" but it does not always happen!!

My 07 filly this year is HUGE, out of a 33.5" mare and a 32.75" sire that do NOT have big backgrounds. She will stay under 34". Did I breed for that? No I did not. I also bred that same mare to a stallion that is 33.5" also and their foal decided to mature at 29!!! I dont breed for under 30 either because I like to drive and like a bigger horse for that. I have seen MANY other horses with AMHA SMALL parents that produced horses that went well over 34". It's the luck of the draw with these guys, but it's ok because if you have a quality horse, SOMEbody is going to like it and there will be a market for it, regardless.

If they dont fit in AMHA, there is AMHR!

The POA registry allows the oversized ponies to retain papers, but as breeding stock only. Being a half inch too big to show does not mean they are not a POA. Did the owners breed for big? Probably not, but I guarantee they will take that nice mare or stallion and breed back down to something smaller again, to raise some showable ponies. Being breeding stock does not mean the quality is poor at all!!

Some here dont seem to be getting it that this issue is NOT just with AMHA!!! It is with ANY height breed!! Making the comment of 'that's why I dont show AMHA' does not address the problem, nor does it solve anything. 'The Problem' is everywhere!!

Working for a large corporation who tries to stay on the very top end of the market, there are a lot of changes that occur on a yearly, monthly and sometimes even weekly basis. You HAVE to to stay up with the rest of the world.

AMHA is a corporation, but if it sits stagnant and no rules or by laws are changed to improve, update and 'get with the times' then it is eventually going to be 'left behind'!! That goes for ANY 'business'!!

Many folks are out there working hard to improve the breed, but it doesnt appear that too many are working as hard to improve the rules and things the breed has to live by. The ones that do seem to be quickly shot down for some reason and I dont understand why folks have such an aversion to changing or improving the rules that have to be lived by.

I have only been in Minis since 95, but have seen this issue over and over and I have many friends who have been at it since about 1980 or so- and this has ALWAYS been an issue.

Measuring in.... I dont know why a simple rule with specific guidelines can't be written -and implemented- no matter WHERE you measure to.


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Nov 2, 2007)

Jodi has been helpful to me as well answering questions for me so I appreciate that.

and you are right I have done drug testing at horse shows (boy there is a job for that show dirty jobs) standing there like a boob waiting for a horse to pee sigh..

Anyway by the reactions we got at those shows it was obvious some were very worried what we might find (although we never even saw or knew the results)


----------



## slv (Nov 2, 2007)

The points made by Robin and Marianne are very valid. They have years of experience in producing the quality of horses that most of us only dream of. I also cannot imagine sending a good breeding stock mare or stallion on to another registry just because they have gone an inch or so over. But the fact is that is what AMHA is now electing to do. That is why AMHR is thriving. Look at the shows and not to mention the REVENUE. If AMHA wants to remain a height registry (requiring ALL horses to be 34 or under) then I am afraid for them that the AMHR will be the real future of miniature horses, and they shoud be. All major corporations that have been successful have had to "conform to the times" at one point or another.

I don't see what is wrong with the issue of "BREEDING STOCK" papers to the over 34' horses. If AMHA wants to remain a height registry as far as the shows are concerned, then so be it.

I am one that owns a nice 35' mare that is AMHR registered and has had four foals. Two are at a mature height of 30 inches and one of these was by a 34 inch stallion. One thing you cannot breed for consistently is height.

My main point to this is I personally believe that AMHA is limiting their future, not ours. We will keep breeding our big illegitimate minis and AMHR will keep registering them and we will have a ball showing them at the AMHR shows.

Also, just want to add that I have been in horses all of my life. I have NEVER seen any type, breed or size of a horse that did not have a withers. That is totally impossible!!!!


----------



## Field-of-Dreams (Nov 2, 2007)

Robin and Marianne make super points.....











Several years ago I bought a gorgeous sorrel appaloosa colt. He was by AMHA parents, tiny refined fella when I saw him at three weeks. When I picked him up after weaning he seemed to have sprouted... but still an A. I always hardshipped anything I bought A only into R (that's when it was only $50 extra) Good thing. He is mature at almost 38"!! All out of small stock that goes back for generations. He is a superb looking GELDING now, I just couldn't breed him to any of our mares, the largest being 36". (Once he gets his head screwed on straight he'll make an awesome driving horse. He's just a little loopy right now....



) But strictly by papers and pedigree, he is a purebred AMHA horse....

Lucy


----------



## Debby - LB (Nov 2, 2007)

Robin said:


> Debby- It isn't a matter of breeding for oversized or being self serving- it is called genetics- obviously you haven't produced many foals - at least numbers wise. We are talking about a breed- not height. Are we a breed? We - at Little King Farm breed for a breed type- we do not breed for height. I have horses that are only AMHR registered, only ASPC registered, only ASHR and many that are double and triple papered. We breed to fit type and quality- where they end up is where they end up height wise. If they fit into AMHA- we hardship them if need be. AMHA is only height- there is no type in AMHA. There is no type in AMHR- if it fits in height great- if not- oh well. Both registries have a dwarf issue- that again is a breed issue- oh but the miniature horse isn't a breed.
> 
> Yes- when you breed for type and quality- you do produce horses of different heights. I have a Buck Echo daughter whose sire is 28.25" and a mother that is 32" and it is over 34"- well over. Do you think I knew that was going to happen? I had a 25% chance genetically- that it would go over, I had a 75% chance it wouldn't - so what do I do? I have 3 full siblings all between 29-31". HUMMMMM. I guess I should stick with AMHR then. I personally don't want to breed down to the dwarf size. I try to produce the best horse that I can at whatever height it ends up.
> 
> ...


I'm sorryI didn't realize anyone was arguing!.... But this topic (last time I looked) IS about HEIGHT and measurement.

You are correct I've not bred many miniature horses at all and I don't intend to. I breed a few and certainly not every year and I do it for my satisfaction and to try to improve what I picked to make the horse what I want to look at....while staying in the under 34" range.

Ponies I dearly Love and I, like a few other breeders strive to produce a under 34" horse that looks similar to one. Ponies (no offense please) are a dime a dozen, the A division miniature horse is unique and yes I believe you can have some without calling them dwarfy. I don't like what you said about the smaller horses being dwarfy but I may have taken it wrong.

And I am aware the miniature horse is not considered a breed I never said it was, unless you are referring to my use of the words "breed standard" I guess I should have said "association standard" That's the thing here the fact that AMHA is a height registry and some people are pushing the limit on that height.

I at no time said a horse didn't have a wither that is ridiculous, what I was trying to say is that trying to get a correct measurement on a horses wither that is flat and buried under a mound of muscle on a neck that ties in half way down it's back is harder than getting a correct measurement from trying to find the last hair of the mane.

Trying to breed for quality and wanting to see good genetics kept as breedable stock to perpetuate the quality of the "breed" was not my reference to self serving- self serving has to do with the height crop outs people are producing to get this quality and then wanting to change the registry rules to allow them in.

As I did ask in another post why is AMHR not as favorable to the people whose horses go over 34" ? I pull the AMHA papers on my horses who go oversize and I don't whine about it, not that you are whinning Robin I'm talking in general here, but several are....and trying to change the rules to suit them. I'm just not quite seeing the point of grown people in such an uproar about measuring a little horse.


----------



## kaykay (Nov 2, 2007)

Ponies (no offense please) are a dime a dozen,


> You realize of course there are way more Miniature horses then there are American Shetlands? I dont understand this sentence at all!! How could it not be taken offensively to those of us that own American Shetlands?


----------



## Charlotte (Nov 2, 2007)

> I also feel that an outside source should be doing the measuring and no trainer or owner should be allowed to handle the horse at measuring time.
> I've read most all of this thread and wish I were as articulate as some of you, I'd love to be able to explain what I want to say in more depth and will try.
> 
> I would like to say (or try to so excuse non proper English)... folks, all of you so adamant about pointing out the difference in how the taller horses look and what nice genetics they can bring.. We already have a registry that allows them, it is AMHR they have a A division and a B division, why do you insist on pushing them on the AMHA registry?
> ...






Very well said Debby.

But just a note on the measuring ....no matter where you measure, what you measure with, who does the measuring....unfortunately there will always be a few who will try to cheat to win.



It's just sad, you know?

Charlotte


----------



## Debby - LB (Nov 2, 2007)

kaykay said:


> Ponies (no offense please) are a dime a dozen,
> 
> 
> > You realize of course there are way more Miniature horses then there are American Shetlands? I dont understand this sentence at all!! How could it not be taken offensively to those of us that own American Shetlands?
> ...


----------



## Minimor (Nov 2, 2007)

> I at no time said a horse didn't have a wither that is ridiculous, what I was trying to say is that trying to get a correct measurement on a horses wither that is flat and buried under a mound of muscle on a neck that ties in half way down it's back is harder than getting a correct measurement from trying to find the last hair of the mane.


 I'm sorry, this just sounds weird to me. If you've got a nice correct little horse, be he under 34" or over 34"....the neck isn't going to tie in half way down the back and the wither isn't going to be flat and buried under a mound of muscle.
I've got a couple little geldings here (34" and 33" that are rather fat...overly fat at the moment...and even so their necks don't tie in (or evan appear to!) half way down their backs. One has more wither than the other, but on both it's easier to find the withers....fat as they!...than it is the last mane hair, which this time of year in this climate is hard to distinguish from the rest of their fuzzy coats...

And definitely, yes, there are far more Miniatures around than there are ponies. Here in this province you will not find one single ASPC pony and otherwise the "pony" is pretty much taken to mean riding ponies 12.2 & over--Welsh crosses used for Pony Club. You don't see any of the dumpy little Shetland ponies we all grew up with--around here if you see a dumpy little "pony" if you ask about the animal you will learn that in reality "it is a Miniature Horse".


----------



## wpsellwood (Nov 2, 2007)

Ed asked me to post this for him.

I appologize if some people were offended by my statement of legitimate miniature horses. I still stand by my statement because the letter was addressed to AMHA members. There was no reference to AMHR. AMHA's criteria to be registered in their registry is that they be 34'' and under to be a legitimate AMHA Miniature horse. I personally think it is wonderful that there are two viable registries. I just wish that they could work more in harmony and both sides lose the TUDE as one person posted.

As to the protest subject, the fact of who is guilty or not is irrelevent. I, along with many others have been guilty in the past, no question. The problem is that the association has allowed this to go on for quite some time. First it was a 1/4" and then it was 1/2'' and now it has gotten completely out of hand. If you wanted to compete, you had to cheat! When we witness one of our board members cheating, then you say to yourself, If he can do it, why shouldnt I. It has become so blatant that it is an insult to all peoples inteligence.

They can stop this very easily. Just measure the horses properly to begin with. The measurer should have the guts and the authority to refuse to measure any horse that is not stood properly according to the rule. If you do not cooperate, then take the horse back to the stall or take them home. If you want to terrorize the measuring staff, then you can and will be suspended for 6 months.

Everyone has this bad vibe about protesting. That is the only tool, you as a member has to make things right. I look at it as playing poker. I am betting $50.00 that your horse is bigger than you say he is. Either you win the bet or you lose. People take it as a personal attack, well take it for what its worth. If you played by the rules to begin with, there would be no protests. Its time to stop the insanity and put every horse where they belong, in the right class. It always amazes me that the guilty always want to be portrayed as the victim. Lets just try to fix the problem and move on to the next one. We all know there are many more to tackle.

Respectively

Ed Sisk


----------



## Boinky (Nov 2, 2007)

humm i dont' know. i think generallys peaking that YES there are lots of ponies (of every breed) in the USA but there are tons of mini's too there are TONS under 34". just watch the saleboard. I honestly think i see more A horse for sale than B horse.s Just because they are under 34" does NOT mean they are quality well built horses. Neither does it being a B size. It's very hard to find NICE well conformed animals in ANY height. There's a handful in the A's and a handfull in the B's. everything else is pretty much pet quality. If that QUALITY A horse goes over 34" it still has "little" genes that can be passed off onto it's offspring AND it has the "pretty/well built" genes (not just little)and could be very very beneficial for the under population. I can't imagine why anyone would want to eliminate a quality animal from their breeding program and go with crappy under horses just because they are under.. makes no sence to me.

I don't think there is any disgrace to having an only AMHR horse. Infact i'd PREFER AMHR if i was going to choose. I have two AMHR only horses and i pretty much only show AMHR after having shown AMHA (which we have tons far closer than the AMHR show's that are 10+ hours away from us) and seeing the attitudes and stuff. just not what draws me in and so to me there is FAR more importance to R horses!


----------



## Debby - LB (Nov 2, 2007)

Minimor said:


> > I've got a couple little geldings here (34" and 33" that are rather fat...overly fat at the moment...and even so their necks don't tie in (or evan appear to!) half way down their backs. One has more wither than the other, but on both it's easier to find the withers....fat as they!...than it is the last mane hair, which this time of year in this climate is hard to distinguish from the rest of their fuzzy coats...
> >
> > And definitely, yes, there are far more Miniatures around than there are ponies. Here in this province you will not find one single ASPC pony and otherwise the "pony" is pretty much taken to mean riding ponies 12.2 & over--Welsh crosses used for Pony Club. You don't see any of the dumpy little Shetland ponies we all grew up with--around here if you see a dumpy little "pony" if you ask about the animal you will learn that in reality "it is a Miniature Horse".
> 
> ...


----------



## RockRiverTiff (Nov 2, 2007)

Ugh guys! That was my gut reaction throughout the hour it took me to read this thread. I had to go back and reread the original letter/proposal in question more than once, because we have gotten so off-topic. We seem to have an issue here seeing the forest for the trees. I would love for everyone that is inspired to take up a different complaint to start their own thread; so many of these issues are relevant to the registries, but NOT to this topic!

I often feel that this is why both registries fail to make even the most obvious and neccessary of changes--we as a membership can't focus our efforts--we are so busy trying to prove that each of us as an individual is right, that we lose track of what SHOULD matter the most to EVERYONE. I would like to believe that that is what Ed's letter was addressing--that the corruption is at every level, to the point where the membership as a whole (regardless of your position or political clout within it) needs to put their foot down. Those that say they no longer participate in AMHA or have stopped trying, well that's how it got to this point. The corruption got to the top because we let it roll right over us on the way there.

So breaking this down to what I feel is the true point of the original topic--I am all in favor of this new rule that allows people to protest a horse after it's class. It seems like a very small step in the right direction. It being a very small step, we have a long way to go before we solve this problem (if we ever do), but at least it's progress. Why argue about enforcing the rules unless we intend to break them?


----------



## anita (Nov 2, 2007)

ED, why do you need someone to post for you? Talk to folks personally and bring the confusion out of town.

They are all good folks, new starters, pure and simple all are supporters of our Miniature Horse Industry.

Without we have no industry. They want to know

A good breeder stand behind his horses and his act.

Anita


----------



## Songcatcher (Nov 2, 2007)

I have hesitated to post on this thread because it always winds up the same thing. Basically, d**n the AMHA because they will not register a horse over 34 inches. Excuse me, but AMHR will not register a horse over 38 inches. Where is all the furor over that? And, if my understanding is correct, an AMHR horse that goes over 38 is not registerable as a Shetland unless it already has Shetland papers. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. One little quarter inch is one little quarter inch regardless of where you draw the line.

I love horses. I hate politics. I can appreciate horses of any size, but have a passion for little horses and that is what I will breed for.

I can live with it if AMHA leaves their rules as they are. I can live with it if they change the rules to measure any height at any position. Those who feel so cheated because their horse measures one little quarter inch over the 34 inch line will feel equally cheated if their horse measures one little quarter inch over whatever line is set.

I have not yet shown (and not sure I ever will after reading threads like this). I don't breed a whole lot (I am expecting my biggest foal crop yet of 7 foals next year). But I breed with the goal of producing the best conformed, smallest horse possible. If the result of those breedings go over 34 inches, so what, they are also AMHR registered and some people seem to really like them (but they are just not my passion). If the results of those breedings were to go over 38 inches, there would be someone wanting them also, but they would not fit in my breeding program.

There are some people on here who would not be happy regardless. I think I will go brush the horses.


----------



## MyBarakah (Nov 2, 2007)

I've been reading all of this and just have to say that I commend and totally support what Robin & Belinda has said! I show both A & R... After showing 2 years at Nationals... I personally do not want to show again at any more R shows or Nationals..... I am sticking with A and after show both A & R... I personally like the AMHA shows better...... I raise & like the "A" horses... with my own experience..... I do know that there's a HUGE size problem with measuring in both A & R..... And at Nationals..... in all the classes I showed in there was some VERY TALL horses in all my classes and the TALL horses won every time..... I don't see the heigth problem as bad at the shows compared to Nationals.... but I do notice with showing R verses A there is such a WIDE variety of horses being shown in the R shows and at Nationals.... that a shetland/R cross will win over a A horse almost always.... And especially at Nationals...... there is just too large of a variation of breeds (shetland verses miniatures) being shown and needs to be broken up..... along with they need to change some rules like they have at the A shows for R with the Amature classes... they need to make different levels!! I just think there needs to be some changes for showing R when it comes to Nationals! Just my opinion.......but that's what I see.... So I will stick with the A shows.....


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Nov 2, 2007)

songcatcher I agree the height limit is the height limit no matter what the registry.

For me and me only the issue is why bother with the expense of DNA and PQ when in reality it isnt a breed it is and always has been a height registry as is AMHR why bother with the pretense of being a breed when you dont follow thru is something I dont understand

how does it make anything more legitimate when any thing that is 34 or under can be registered? not that there is anything wrong with that just dont understand the opposite ends of the spectrum


----------



## ruffian (Nov 2, 2007)

> It's very hard to find NICE well conformed animals in ANY height. There's a handful in the A's and a handfull in the B's. everything else is pretty much pet quality.


Wow - you must have big hands. How many exactly are a handful? I've got 23 horses, and in My opinion, as well as some top quality judges, I have some very well conformed horses. So of the 10 that have shown and done very well, is that a handful? OK, what about my friends who have 13. Several have national champion titles, is that a hand and foot-full?

The World Magazine sure has some a nice horses, as does the Journal. I certainly don't agree with your statement!


----------



## Boinky (Nov 2, 2007)

ok i did not mean that statement to offend or even, i guess, quite how it sounds.. i know this is a bit subjective and depends on what each individual likes and dislikes. BUT lets look at the number of horses being sold... take for example the sales board.....tell me how many do you REALLY think are top quality show and breeding candidates? truly?? when you are talking about a majority and minority type of thing. Maybe i'm just extremely picky but it's rare when i'm surfing through the saleboard and see anything that REALLY jumps out at me as WOW that is a really outstanding horse. yes it happens and usually those horses have very very large tags on them ect... but as far as how many per day or per week or even per month?? not nearly as many as i see that i either pass by without a second glance because they aren't WOW or i outright say YUCK.

definatly a minority of outstanding and even "nice" mini's out there...but then that happens in ANY breed.


----------



## Charlotte (Nov 2, 2007)

> We - at Little King Farm breed for a breed type- we do not breed for height.


But Robin, part of the 'breed type' IS height! Our whole goal as breeders should be to produce quality, correct conformation and the 'type' as spelled out in the Registries' Standards Of Perfection *within the height limits set by our registering organization.*

Charlotte


----------



## sdmini (Nov 2, 2007)

Height will not always breed true, I get that however keeping the gene pool limited to those under 34" is going to increase your odds of producing a under 34" foal than those with parents 38" or more. For a _miniature_ horse registry to promote the idea of size doesn't matter I find vastly interesting.

Why is it so outside the scope of reason that we can not be both a height registry and a breed. Our criteria is height so what. How does height criteria make a _Miniature_ Horse Association less valid as a registry? Neither do I get the logic that if we close the books somehow overnight we will morph into a breed if we were not before. I find height more of criteria than a set of papers.

We will never have a uniform look. Never will someday people be able to look at a 42" horse and say, "look at that, a D division miniature." Miniatures are very much "Americas" horse as they are a melting pot of types, Arabian, Thourbred, Quarter Horse, Draft and even good old generic pony. Again so what? Miniatures diversity is one of their strongest points.

If a certain farm breeds for a certain look, that's fine but does that mean any horse that does not look like that is not a miniature? Of course not, so were back to no one set type, what defines us is our height.

Change is a great and vital thing for every facet of life but change just to suit the fashion of the day is not. There are repercussions to everything proposed and if one is not removed enough to see potential problems perhaps they should listen to those with opposing views just as diligently as they are asking to be heard.

I have AMHA only horses and AMHR only horses, 34" and under and 34"+, as of late I have been eyeing the ASPC ponies but have promised my husband I'll be good till I move a few horses. If I do acquire ASPC horse I do not expect the miniature associations to change the parameters of the game simply because I've acquired a new chess piece.

_For fun I looked up the word breed so for the sake of the first 1/4 of the definition do we disregard the latter?_

breed (n.) A group of organisms having common ancestors and certain distinguishable characteristics, especially a group within a species developed by artificial selection and maintained by controlled propagation.


----------



## Becky (Nov 2, 2007)

> Height will not always breed true, I get that however keeping the gene pool limited to those under 34" is going to increase your odds of producing a under 34" foal than those with parents 38" or more.


Exactly! I haven't yet figured out how adding horses over 34" to the AMHA gene pool is going to increase the odds of producing under 34" horses.


----------



## runamuk (Nov 3, 2007)

Then the talk of closing the studbook should end if a miniature horse is anything under 34. I am sure there will be more under 34 specimens coming along for years that are worthy of being registered.

Lock the height for shows at 34 not a centimeter over, fix the measuring issue, and allow PQ AMHA horses over 34 to be retained in a breeders program for them to gamble with. Then and only then does closing the studbook even begin to make sense. Otherwise AMHA horses will hit a wall and the gene pool will become more of a cesspool. The breed as a whole comes from a limited genetic pool to begin with the inbreeding coeffients will skyrocket if you cut off both AMHA PQ horses and outside hardship.

I still say a change allowing judges to call for a measurement in the class would be a quick way to weed out a vast majority of cheaters, no one likes being called out in front of their peers


----------



## Arion Mgmt (Nov 3, 2007)

I have quietly sat, and I must say, I have been intrigued with the conversation over a very touchy subject.

I will try my best to stay on Ed's subject he wrote about, since some of us have strayed a bit. I'm glad now we ALL can admit that we have measured horses in that were a little above the class they got measured into, and at the same time complain about it being done by others.

I will never say I am innocent, BUT I will never "go after" someone, "betting that their horse is over", when I am doing the same. It is not as much the fault of the trainers or the owners, it is much more the fault of the Association, why bother with the rules if you will not enforce them. Measuring in at the Worlds is flat out a free for all circus.

I go to both AMHA and AMHR Worlds/Nationals, and yes there are things done at both but AMHA is by far OUT OF CONTROL, since there is no class for the taller ones to go to if they measure out, and AMHA wants no problems. However that IS the problem.

I believe it has always been the Association's lack of testicular fortitude to make the measuring of show horses even somewhat slightly legitimate. I dont care where they get measured at, though I prefer the withers since it would stop the dying of body hair and give more consistency, since Miniatures are the ONLY horses in the world measured at the "last hairs of the mane."

AMHA is not interested in integrity with the measuring, they need to make sure the most number of horses get measured in to make everyone "happy" so there is no rocking of the boat. You all seem to forget all the entries are already paid for when you arrive there, stall, shavings, etc. If your horse doesnt measure in, your are going to be really ticked off, because you have already given AMHA all the money they wanted, you just didnt get your horse measured in to show, thats all. All AMHA wants to do is keep the members happy, be it owners or trainers, so I will tell you, by far, I think that is the over riding issue. AMHA does not want anymore people leaving AMHA for AMHR, it is that simple.

So, why do you think AMHA does NOT want a stewards program for measuring, especially at Regionals and Worlds? You get your horse in at Regionals, or your trainer does, and you think your horse is fine. Well, for the trainers who only have to travel a few hours, its really no big deal because there is less cost on the client if the horse doesnt measure, so they are going to take the ones that are close, or over. The trainers that really take the chance are the ones that travel a good 12 to 36 hrs with an over horse for whatever class they WANT to show it in. If there was a true stewards system to do the measuring you would have a lot less of a problem with taller horses in the wrong classes. It might not get all the ones within a 1/4" or less but it by all means should get the ones that are blatantly over, like 1/2" to 1 1/2", especially if they are measured at the withers.

So, I really would be in favor of a stewards program and more strick enforcement of the measuring rules when the horses are stood for measuring. I think that will really be the only workable solution that AMHA would even think about implementing. I would be really in favor of measuring at the withers too.

On a side note, For those of you that have answered the thread with regards to studying genetics whether general, plant or animal, or even Equine. If you answered yes to it, and still have the opinion that the Miniature horse is a true breed, you need to go back and reread all that you did before. Also if you think that the Miniatures will eventually be able to breed consistent heights and stay under some arbitrary height, you need to go back and reread your books, and more. Height is a KNOWN QUANTITATIVE TRAIT. It is not an either or, i.e. blue eyes or brown, height is highly variable, and is consistently shown to have a bell shaped curve result in animals no matter what the restrictions. So, you will ALWAYS have outcrops, AGAIN ALWAYS. Height will NEVER be controlled to the extent the AMHA wants given their requirements, ESPECIALLY if they are going to continue to allow hardshipping. And they better not close it because there is no reason to, no type or pedigree requirements to get in only height.

So to say a 35" horse out of A parents is not a Miniature, is WRONG, genetically it is. It is a Miniature genetically, it just did not fit into AMHA's arbitrary height limit. It just didnt all of the sudden become a Shetland did it?? Does it fit that type? (even though they go back to them) Heck Thoroughbreds go back to some Arabs but if they dont run fast enough are they Arabs now?

Now that said, since we have a curve on height, and STILL no "type" that we are to breed for, when are we ever going to be able to breed for anything remotely consistent? NEVER. PERIOD.

Some of us breeders have tried to breed for a type and not a height to see something we dream about to possibly produce somewhat consistently before we die. And yes you will HAVE to sacrifice some height issues to go anywhere to breed a true type, the ones that consistently breeds true to a type. All of you dog breeders know that when breeding dogs, and get a litter, you get a range of heights and qualities in a litter. That is how dog breeds can be made so much faster, changed faster than single birth animals. A Jack Ruussel that does not fit breed height requirements but is a quality Jack Russel is stiil a Jack Russel, it just cant be shown, it isnt all of the sudden a Collie on crack. Horses dont have that luxury that dogs do and height is a variable trait that can be managed to get to a true type. But again AMHA does not want that because they use judges at Worlds of all breed types, so the horses that win will be of all types, so again everyone is happy and everyone's horse has value in someone's eyes. We will never be a true breed with these issues to deal with. And this has nothing to do with color, yet. I will be happy to copy past this part to the genetics poll thread too.

Respectfully,

John Eberth

AMHA Genetics Committe Chairman

University of Kentucky Gluck Equine Research Center

Arion Management Inc.


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Nov 3, 2007)

Arion Mgmt said:


> I believe it has always been the Association's lack of testicular fortitude to make the measuring of show horses even somewhat slightly legitimate.
> So, I really would be in favor of a stewards program and more strick enforcement of the measuring rules when the horses are stood for measuring. I think that will really be the only workable solution that AMHA would even think about implementing.


Right on the money on BOTH points!


----------



## Amy (Nov 3, 2007)

Margo_C-T said:


> I haven't read the most recent AMHA Rulebook cover to cover lately, but it at least USED to make clear that judges are NOT allowed to question height; if the horse appears in a class, it is 'supposed to' be there, and its height may not be publically questioned by a judge. I do believe that is how it should be, all things considered. It is for the registry and its management, from the top down, to SEE THAT the RULES, which have been agreed to/set by the MEMBERS, ARE FOLLOWED AND ENFORCED!
> 
> I have very limited experience with AMHR, but from what I do have, I would say they have pretty much the SAME issues as AMHA--like it or not.
> 
> Margo



Yes, this is correct == however, at a dog show -- IF the judge thinks the dog is oversized - he stops the show class -- puts the stick on the dog in question in the middle of the class & measures him -- if it is over the dog & handler are excused from the class. One judge in particular checks many dogs so obviously many handlers will not go to a show where he is judging -- the same would happen with AMHA -- the fellow that pulled the stick in public would soon not get hired to judge at many shows -- perhaps this is why the horse judges are not allowed to question the height when they are judging- you have to assume they were ALL measured properly by the "official" in charge of measuring.

However, AMHA is in bad need of a "WHAA AMBULANCE" as they are always crying about something-- begging for more dollars to bail them out of whatever latest financial crisis they are in.

When we first started showing we had ALL AMHA horses & showed only AMHA -- later double registered ALL of them into AMHR -- Last year, we dropped our AMHA membership when the latest hue & cry was to have a division for "oversized" horses to BREED with but NOT to SHOW with -- that did it-- we did not renew our membership or send in an AMHA stallion report -- so again -- more member dollars they turned away -- one

can still have "A" sized horses & show with AMHR.

We have "many" under 34" horses & some under 30" horses -- we also have some ASPC/AMHR over 34"

now as well. THey all have their place -- one does need to be "better" than the other -- but YES--- definetely AMHR was The original registry -- Thanks Belinda for the dates.


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Nov 3, 2007)

Arion Mgmt said:


> I. A Jack Ruussel that does not fit breed height requirements but is a quality Jack Russel is stiil a Jack Russel, it just cant be shown, it isnt all of the sudden a Collie on crack. Respectfully,
> 
> John Eberth
> 
> ...



Sorry I tried so hard to stay with you here and was doing pretty good ( I do sometimes have a short attention span) but you lost me with the collie on crack thing OMG I am still laughing.. guess it is so funny to me cause I have a Chihuahua on crack... so I do actually totally get where youare going... bred 6 lb and a 4 1/2 lb and ended up with I kid you not one 18 lb dog..






So yes it totally makes sense to me. And for the record that giant circus freak of a chi (who I love dearly) had a litter of pups all were smaller then her... one of the pups then had a litter and they are pretty close to normal (meaning the size of the grandparents at 5-6 lbs) so the genetics thing can be all over the place as my smallest dogs producest the largest pup and then the size seems to have worked its way back to normal from there.

Having a judge be able to measure would not work either.. poor judges are already accused of favors for there friends ect (it may be true on occasion but not at the rate those that get the gate feel it is)

i think that would open up a whole new can of worms but JMO


----------



## wpsellwood (Nov 3, 2007)

JMO, having a measuring steward just cost the clubs more money to put one. As I show both A/R the stewards are no better then you or I at measuring. The last time I went to the R nationals and this is the gods honest truth. A big AMHR trainer was measuring next to me. Pushing down on the back while the steward was measuring the horse. No joke. Their hands was on this stretched out huge pony trying to get into the under class. Low and behold it did. So alot of post are we just quit going to A shows, why? Same thing happens in R. I still do both I guess Im just a sucker.

I agree with John on this it would be a big cluster,



> Having a judge be able to measure would not work either.. poor judges are already accused of favors for there friends ect (it may be true on occasion but not at the rate those that get the gate feel it is)i think that would open up a whole new can of worms but JMO


----------



## miniwhinny (Nov 3, 2007)

Debby said:


> I pull the AMHA papers on my horses who go oversize and *I don't whine about it*, not that you are whinning Robin I'm talking in general here, but several are....and *trying to change the rules to suit them*. I'm just not quite seeing the point of grown people in such an uproar about measuring a little horse.























You SO hit the nail on the head here. The AMHA is for MINIATURE horses. Itty bitty teenie weenie ltttle MINIATURE horses measuring UNDER 34 inches...If breeding true mini's is so hard (to get them under 34 inches) then think about how valuable a true MINI is. Breeders of 34 and under horses should be OUTRAGED that there are people out there who can't breed under 34's, trying to change the rules of OUR registry to get over sized horses in. I do agree we need to measure differntly...absolutly...But IMO anyone with a true mini...UNDER 34 " should fight like heck to keep THEM the true miniature of the AMHA. Wake up, breeders of "A" sized mini's and smell the roses...OUR's are the hardest to breed for in size and perfection...I'm striving for that and I'm fighting like heck to keep them as important as they are.









If I bred an over with my 29 inch stallion I'd hardship AMHR, not whine and pout and cheat and try to get the rules changes for me...I stopped (not sure I ever started) that way back in preschool


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Nov 3, 2007)

miniwhinny said:


> You SO hit the nail on the head here. The AMHA is for MINIATURE horses. Itty bitty teenie weenie ltttle MINIATURE horses measuring UNDER 34 inches...If breeding true mini's is so hard (to get them under 34 inches) then think about how valuable a true MINI is. should fight like heck to keep THEM the true miniature



Well not to pick on you but that is the whole crux of the issue. breeding true minis isnt hard at all (what is a true mini anyway) lets be honest they are all ponies now matter what cutsey little name you want to call them.

All your DNA and PQ doesnt mean anything since it isnt a breed it is a height registry period - but come on now there are thousands of under 34 in horses heck thousands of under 31 in horses and plenty under 30 in horses so really that doesnt make them valuable by any means.. it takes more then size to keep them worth anything that is the whole issue for so many years AMHA used that argument to try and pull themselves away and make themselves different then the original AMHR

but doesnt seem in the long run to have worked very well for them with all the financial issues they have had over the years

Is it rules they set forth yes.. can they lose people by being unwilling to change yes.. that will be there choice

however that statement always gets me a true mini what on earth does that mean if a registry started tomorrow and decided that 30 was the height limit does that make your 32 in not a true mini????

Seems to me miniature horse (which will always be a pony by definition) is just that a small horse- compare my 37 in mini to a 15 hand horse and guess what he is a small horse therefore a miniature horse not a fake mini, not a wantabe mini but a actual miniature horse

I have to say calling Robin or John whiners and or cheaters is a bit silly really they have been a HUGE part of AMHA for years HUGE part and a huge supporter along with other farms but really now.. doesnt seem like a tantrum by any means it seems like people who have life long experience trying to get an organization to see that sometimes change is good and necessary when you have some of the founding families saying hey this is a problem an issue that needs to be looked at seems logical to me that- they are right. I would never say I know more or better then them I didnt grow up in the royal family of TRUE MINIATURES so to speak so how could I simply laugh off there suggestions and opinions as whining and trying to cheat when the reality is they have much more true knowledge of the industry then I could ever hope to have in a lifetime????


----------



## miniwhinny (Nov 3, 2007)

Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis said:


> I have to say calling Robin or John whiners and or cheaters is a bit silly really they have been a HUGE part of AMHA for years


I think if you read Debby's post again you'll see she made a piont of saying that she didn't think Robin was whining





But I still think that if we aren't a breed but a height registry then the smallest horse is perfection of the breed..like a pyramid..the smallest should be on top and the biggest at the bottom.


----------



## JWC sr. (Nov 3, 2007)

John You make very valid points as far as the genetics are concerned. As you know height is not something that you can deal with as a simple recsessive or dominate trait that is predictable in any shape, form or fashion. Anyone that says it is needs to go back to the biology books and work up from there, as they are only fooling themselves. OH!

But with that said, I really do not understand why folks are all over the page on this subject and also why they get so bent out of shape about it. To me it is pretty simple. Both of our registries have drawn a line in the sand so to speak. AMHA is 34" or Less, AMHR is 38" or less, simple enough to understand and acceptable to me if that is where they want to be as a collective membership of each.





If either one wants to allow horses fro breeding purposes only that are over those heights is okay by me also. And is probally something they should both look at to keep the horses produced in either association in that respective association. As far as DNA and PQ is concerned it is a good idea also, if we truly want to be able to become a breed at some point in the future.





As far as the measuring is concerned, personally I would love to see them start to measure at the withers as I think it would be easier for stewarts etc. to understand and consistently be as correct as possible. Unfortunately I don't think you will ever get that done without some variance to the respective heigths that are acceptable. In our experience in dealing with our Europen friends measuring at the withers adds up to 1 1/2" to any horse of normal conformation. It would be pretty simple for the registries to simply add that much in measurement to the height requirements for both registries. IE: A would go to 35 1/2" and R would go to 39 1/2" or so.





But that will not do away with the problem that started this entire thread, the lack of proper and consistent measurement of show horses. That will not correct itself untill there is consistent montoring and enforcement of whatever the rules are.





That does not fall into the realm of something that the individual member can deal with and requires the input and attention of the powers that be in each registry. What is needed in my opinion is pretty simple, require the measurers to be licensed, paid and BONDED for any and all sanctioned shows for either registry. Then provide periodic monitoring by a third party paid & also bonded. If the parties doing the show managment are found to be incorrect, they need to be pulled up for review and ultimately if it is a gross or repetitive situation that persons bond would be pulled. Having a bond pulled is a major problem for folks that try to get real day jobs from any governmental entity or large company.





I guarantee you that if a few bonds are pulled and/or people are worried about that consequence the bull corn will reduce itself overnight to a point where it will be a very small problem. And before anyone goes there, there was a case where in a certain dog registry that a steward was being paid by a handler to fudge the height on a couple of beagles. The stewart and the handler were filed on for RICO act violations and also for fraud, my inderstanding is that they finally negociated out a settlement where they were removed from all respective membership functions for a period of three years . I doubt anyone in their right mind want that kind of problem, again though enforcement is the key.








Bottom line to me is that Cindy & I believe there is a place for every miniature horse and something to do with that miniature horse. Be that as a pet, performance horse, halter horse or whatever. We need to as members of both or either registries need to encourange breeders to find places and people for each of those horses they produce. If not we are doomed to remain a small portion of the overall equine community.

Will there always be people willing to press the envelope to try and win in the show ring? Of course there will be, in my mind it is the job of our registires is to make it so uncomfortable and costly to the individuals that do attempt to take advantage of the rules that most will hesitate to do so.





On a final note, I sure wish folks would stop bashing AMHA and AMHR, I am a lifetime member of AMHA and have been a member of AMHR for over 20 years and am proud to be a member of both. Do they have some problems, of course they do. But nothing that is so bad I would ever give up my membership in either. Hopefully with a little long term work we as members can make them better, I know it is frustrating and seems to take forever to get anything to change, but then again I always see the glass half full. LOL


----------



## Minimor (Nov 3, 2007)

> But I still think that if we aren't a breed but a height registry then the smallest horse is perfection of the breed..like a pyramid..the smallest should be on top and the biggest at the bottom.


And there, I think, is the real crux of the problem. Miniature horses are a height breed, nothing more, which means there are far too many people breeding only for height. If the horse is small, it is desirable. If it is a little less small, it is worthless. So many will throw out a nearly perfect 34.25" horse and keep one that is 32" and not quite so close to perfect...even far from perfect...small size is put ahead of good conformation (and yes of course I know there are some nicely conformed horses that are also very small--I am NOT saying that every small horse is poorly conformed). But the honest to goodness truth is that many, many people do value small size over good conformation.


----------



## Vertical Limit (Nov 3, 2007)

> QUOTE(Arion Mgmt @ Nov 2 2007, 11:11 PM)
> I. A Jack Ruussel that does not fit breed height requirements but is a quality Jack Russel is stiil a Jack Russel, it just cant be shown, it isnt all of the sudden a Collie on crack. Respectfully,
> 
> John Eberth
> ...


Nothing like a great sense of humor......THANKS........BTW.........I think I have one of those. OH!


----------



## miniwhinny (Nov 3, 2007)

Minimor said:


> But the honest to goodness truth is that many, many people do value small size over good conformation.


and many MANY of us value size AND perfection in conformation









.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 3, 2007)

Great posts all - lots of things to consider and think about.

Regarding Ed's letter - I'm glad he's at least stepping up to the plate and wanting to see things cleaned up. I've always found it funny how people can say "My horse ALWAYS measures 32 1/4" sorry I cant measure me exactly the same. I could be 1/4" on/off depending on posture, but the very blatent misuse of the 'last mane hair' by forcing horses to learn to do swan dives, fake mane hair glued in (heard this from a trainer!), dye jobs, not squared up for measuring, etc., that allows the horses 1-2" taller in a class is abuse.

And yes from the TOP down of our voted in officals and judges. The same people that go to the Conventions and whine about not ruining our breed by allowing horses over as breeding stock in AMHA. You can't get me to show AMHA and I really like AMHA as a registry, but the crap you see - it's not worth it. I always figure any trainer is going to beat the pants off me anyway just on skill alone so why cheat?

It really fills you with disgust. And no I'm not AMHA bashing, I see problems with AMHR too, the same stuff just maybe not as high profile as the AMHA Nationals the past few years.

I know there is a monetary incentive to winning as you just raised the perceived value of your horses get with those wins, but come on at what price?

Perhaps we should have a rule that the handler/owner/trainer cannot be within 10 feet of the horse being measured. Set it up and walk away let someone else hold the lead and the steward measure. It wouldn't stop the attempted cheaters with the trained swan dive or dyed/fake mane but would stop the spread eagle rockiing horse measured horses!! That would keep any pushing on the back, reposition, etc. Heck these are show horses and can stand squared for measuring right?

As for Minis ever being a breed - I'd love that, but their are too many breeders/trainers that don't want that they want it kep a height registry. I've argued that point with some as they're concerned with the double registered AMHR/ASPC (Sorry to digress here) wouldn't really be valid - you can't be two 'BREEDS' but you can be a Shetland and a height qualified Mini. They don't want to limit the 'value' on their horses - look at the prices on Shetlands the past few years versus 5 years ago and why 'minis' where created.

Kudos to the breeders breeding for a 'type' and everyone working towards minis being a BREED some day.

Great thoughts all!


----------



## rabbitsfizz (Nov 3, 2007)

It always amazes me that the guilty always want to be portrayed as the victim. Lets just try to fix the problem and move on to the next one. We all know there are many more to tackle.

John Thank you also for this- and for what will now be burned on the back of my mind- the quote about a Jack Russell not suddenly becoming a collie on crack- that is priceless and much needed humour.

It is also very very true.

Because of EU rulings (and do not think this cannot happen to YOU!!!) we here have to accept ANYTHING that is be two registered parents into a registry.

Therefore a 12.2hh pony, if it were by two registered Miniature Horses (and I have one at the moment, by a 32" o/o a 32" that is trying for 12.2hh



) HAS to be accepted for registration and I think The AMHA might also find, were someone to take them to court on this, that they also would have to accept such an animal.

You can stop them showing, and no-one in their right mind would breed from them, but you cannot stop them being registered.

Far better that the AMHA (and AMHR) make a set up voluntarily, whilst they are in full control of the matter, to house these "gone over" animals for the sake of the gene pool.

Lisa makes a very good point with her Chihuahua- a dog bred for small size for CENTURIES yet still able to throw out the odd "Jackhuahua" throw back- I also know of one exactly the same.

These animals still carry the genetics though, and, if carefully bred can, as has been proven, be useful.

Personally I do not care who someone is or how far they have come, if their horse is over it would be marked as such.

I am available to measure at Nationals and Worlds, BTW- just pay my plane fare and give me somewhere to sleep.

I would be fearless.

There are plenty of Americans who would also be- so what exactly is the problem??


----------



## Robin (Nov 3, 2007)

Well- I have to say- I am surprised at some of the ways this topic has been taken and turned.

I believe John hit the nail on the head when he said AMHA just wants to make everyone happy. AMHA has to make their participants happy in order to stay in business- financially.

What are all the breeders of the "truly under 34"" horses going to do when there is no AMHA and they did not support or participate in AMHR because they *do accept an over 34" * horse? For those of us who have been in this business since it's beginning- the majority of the market and business is going somewhere other than the under 30" horse. Unlike in the late 70s and early 80s when a 30" mare with a deformed dwarf on her side would bring $25,000 at auction (Joel Bridges sale 1981), I can hardly sell a small horse- even a very very good one for any decent amount of money. People come to us wanting to buy something that can win or produce winners. Winners tend to be the taller horses in the class- as many of you have stated. The taller horses in the class- is what started this whole topic. Therefore- in order to stay in business, we breed for winners- we hope what ever size it is- it is the tallest in it's class. Then we hope to sell to people who show or have trainers that show- then we are back to the subject at hand- they want to win and they want the tallest horse in the class or division.

So- as John said - we all are dealing with a bell curve when it comes to height- we all have produced over 34" horses- if you haven't yet- you will- if you breed horses that is. It is the fact that AMHA knows this- they rake in the money and give you nothing back when it happens. They want to declare that the product horse is no longer a miniature horse worthy of their recognition. It isn't that we are whining and crying about what we have produced because there is a place for it that retains it's value- AMHR. What is so disturbing is that AMHA wants us to give money to them and constantly bail them out, they want us to support the shows and give more money to them, they want us to be sponsors and give more money, they want us to advertise and give more money, they want us to DNA, Parent Qualify and give more money- for what? So we can see the corrupt politcs at the shows and measuring or so they can hang us out to dry when a horse out of 2 AMHA National Champions under 34" has produced a slightly taller one? Darn- all I did was breed what they want us to breed, give them the money prior to it being born to show that we bred the right 2 horses as far as their rules go (stallion reports), and then register the foal when it is born, DNA and PQ and then in 5 years make the papers illegitimant and take all that money. Oh and on top of that- they allow us to breed and transfer horses prior to being premanently registered and take the money for those foals, transfers, stallion reports, DNA, etc...again raking in the $ but not worrying about the members.

I have no problem with playing by the rules and going elsewhere if need be to retain value to my animals. The point is.... If AMHA is a "height registry" then don't close the registry and get some "testicular fortitude" and measure horses as they should be. If it is going to be a "breed registry" as they want us to all prove and pay we are doing, then make it a breed registry and anything that is produced out of 2 AMHA horses is still an AMHA horse.

We, like a lot of other people who have been in this for over 30 years, have invested a tremendous amount of time and money with AMHA and would prefer to stay with AMHA and support both registries unless it becomes a financial decision to go predominantly with one registry in order to stay business and continue with our goals. AMHA right now lives because people feel they have to have AMHA registered horses due to the years of people putting down AMHR as a substandard registry. People realize now that AMHR pleases its members, offers equal or better opportunites for it's members and has made wise business decisions for the promotion of the miniature horse.

Quality is Quality regardless of height and I will say- if height is all that matters to AMHA- then I forsee me continuing to support AMHR more. And the comments about "What am I going to do when I get something over 38""- Well it better have ASPC or ASPR papers then shouldn't it? There is a huge difference in 34" and 38" as there is a huge difference in 28" and 32". Ask those who struggle to stay in that under 28" group what they do when they have an over 32" foal? Do they consider their foal not worthy of being registered? I would think not.

I would like to thank everyone who can see the light at the end of the tunnel- as in all business- there are politcs and there is the desire to win- - win at something- someway. I do not feel this is the end of the road so to speak with the miniature horse- in any way. It is people with morals, ethics and smart decisions that perpetuate healthy business and will continue to support the miniature horse industry. But, staying in any business also takes the ability to forsee what has changed or what will change- economically, environmentally, and socially in order to continue forward. I know these are very basic and broad concepts, but they are also very well proven.

Robin Mingione-LKF


----------



## HGFarm (Nov 3, 2007)

Great post John, and yes, I am STILL laughing over the 'collie on crack' comment. Unfortunately I have a very vivid imagination so really got a visual on that!! hahahahahahaha

Some of this has gotten so off topic....

Anyone who thinks that breeding two horses under 34" is going to guarantee you a foal that matures under that size is, well........ living in a distant land far from reality. That is part of the fun of breeding Miniatures.

I try to breed quality Minis under 34 with color. Just because I breed two loud colored horses certainly does not guarantee that I will get a foal with color! Again, part of the quest to breed the best. Other breeds of other sizes and types have requirements and limitations too, size minimums, color restrictions or requirements, etc.... Every registry has rules, people just need to enforce and follow them.

The problem here is measuring at the shows and not following and UPHOLDING the rules already written.

I can guarantee that for folks that get the over horses measured in somehow to even qualify for Nationals deserve to be ticked when they get to Nationals and dont measure in because they KNOW what they have had to do to get measured in at the shows prior to that. They KNOW darned good and well exactly how big those horses are.

So it isnt just happening at Nationals- it is all over, no matter WHAT association you show with.

For those that comment that an over 34 horse that is a quarter inch over gets 'thrown away' by AMHA and suddenly becomes worthless, though it is nicer than the 32" horse- uh, no, then you have a really nice AMHR horse. So what about the horse that measures 38.25" and cant show AMHR? Then OH WELL. It's part of the whole mystery in breeding Minis!! Shall we extend their height to 40" to allow that then, because that horse is nicer than the 37" one? And then when they start going over 40"...... Why have a height breed at all? AMHA has set 34" as the limit - why can't people follow that?


----------



## kaykay (Nov 3, 2007)

great posts

I have always been told by mentors to look ahead at least 5 years. When I do that I see an AMHR that could be closed to AMHA hardshipping.

Then what will happen to all of those over 34" horses? Right now I feel AMHA is using AMHR has a crutch because their answer to the over 34" horse is always REGISTER IT AMHR. When that option is no longer available it will be really interesting to see what happens.

*on a side note I find it so odd that AMHA willingly hands over all that money and customers to their competition?


----------



## miniwhinny (Nov 3, 2007)

rabbitsfizz said:


> Personally I do not care who someone is or how far they have come, if their horse is over it would be marked as such.
> 
> I am available to measure at Nationals and Worlds, BTW- just pay my plane fare and give me somewhere to sleep.
> 
> ...


Political correctness is what wrong in America..AKA kiss-butt



Way too many people here don't step up to the plate because here..the big well known farm names often think they have more rights than the "one foal" producing farm. I'd LOVE to have you measure. I KNOW you don't kiss-butt






and I know you'd be honest with it







kaykay said:


> great posts
> 
> Right now I feel AMHA is using AMHR has a crutch because their answer to the over 34" horse is always REGISTER IT AMHR. When that option is no longer available it will be really interesting to see what happens.


Of course they are..which is why R to many is a second rate registry (I'M not saying it is) because it's looked upon as a place for the "left-overs"..the A rejects ! If R is closed and A's over 34's have no where to be registered...they will instantly become worthless in regards to being used for breeding/showing programs no matter what their show record. Then R will be the registry to be in


----------



## joylee123 (Nov 3, 2007)

minie812 said:


> Well, I had THOUGHT about showing nx year but after reading about WHO scratches WHO's back at the shows I think I will have second thoughts. Why waste the money. Pardon the phrase...The good ole' boy network rides again!



[SIZE=12pt]It always has



[/SIZE] and I've been watching since 89


----------



## Reble (Nov 3, 2007)

kaykay said:


> great posts
> 
> Right now I feel AMHA is using AMHR has a crutch because their answer to the over 34" horse is always REGISTER IT AMHR. When that option is no longer available it will be really interesting to see what happens.


Who says this will be. and so what if it happens.

As everyone says we have too many breeding now... OH!

Anything is possible, life is too short to worry about tomorrow and what IF





Just to add, double register now if you are worried about those over horses for your breeding program?

The voters are what will matter, so go vote if you want change or not want change.


----------



## Buckskin gal (Nov 3, 2007)

Very interesting topic and a lot to think about. I will say I belong to both A and R and know neither is perfect. I think the size measuring in both need to be dealt with so there isn't cheating. I sure can see where the ones who want to keep the 34" as top for the Standard are coming from...after all the Standard does say the smallest most perfect is the goal in breeding Miniature Horses. I also believe it is much more of a challenge to get the smallest most perfect horse than it is to get a taller more perfect Miniature Horse. I don't care if AMHA did go to having a "breeding only" class for those who go over 34" if it will help everyone or at least the majority but where is the cut off for size going to be for that breeding class? A suggestion for AMHA would be to consider a class as AMHR did for the over size horses so they can keep bringing in money for the organization. I do understand the position of those who are with AMHA and love to strive for the most perfect miniature horse, who don't want the taller horses in the association...the goal, as been stated for a long time, is the smallest most perfect and now it is the taller ones who are winning...must be frustrating for you. [ I do not understand the judges favoring the taller in the class but it has led to cheating] I do hope the problems are solved for all involved with AMHA for there is such a great need for them, along with R. JMHO Mary


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Nov 3, 2007)

For all of those who say AMHR has throw away horses at 38.25... just to be clear that is not correct. It was an issue that was thought about in trying to breed horses and keep in a height (those without ASPC horses) and they have the NSPR registry

That said it is not meant to be a breeding registry but a performance registry and... any horse who has at least one parent ASPC or AMHR can be registered into NSPR no matter what the height up to 14.2 I believe-

so while it isnt something people try and breed for of course it is a option os that those horses suddenly dont become worthless throw aways.


----------



## LaVern (Nov 3, 2007)

I agree with almost everything Robin except that there is a huge size difference in the A and Bs.

This is all there is supposeded to be

I---------------------1------------------2-------------------3------------------4

And if I have a 6- 7 generation B miniature horse that is bred to be a B and it goes over 38 inches it is worth just as much as most Shetlands that can't show AMHR. (If it is pretty and gentle) I feel, anyway.

We don't get many over 38s, but it happens and they are much more in demand( no papers) than the little tiny ones, for family horses, because of usability and miniature temperment. Renee Lucky Hart Ranch


----------



## ClickMini (Nov 3, 2007)

I competed at R Nationals this year for the first time, and I went as a spectator in 2005. I can assure everyone, that the classes for the 34" and under horses were just as full, if not more full, than the over 34". That tells me a lot about the value of having ALL stock under 38" registered in AMHR. The futurity classes, the halter classes, the driving classes, all full. Driving classes needing to be split due to large entries. If AMHR is seen as second class, that doesn't make any sense to me at all. To compete and win in those VERY large classes, requires one heck of a horse!

I believe the reason that this thread has strayed from the primary issue of the original post, is that the original post did include pretty much all of the issues being discussed: measuring in at the shows, alleged corruption of the AMHA leadership, closing the registry.

Three consistent themes seem to emerge as the primary issues that need to be addressed:

1. MEASURING: what is the most effective way to get the job done consistently and fairly. So many people here, in fact most, are in favor of measuring at the withers. I was at the meeting last year and this was voted down. WHY? If we the people are AMHA, and most are in favor, why is that not being voted in?

2. HARDSHIP REGISTRATION: I don't know the numbers on how many horses are hardship registered each year, but I am betting the number is relatively small. The cost for hardship registering a breeding animal is not insignificant ($1200 for a stallion, $600 for a mare, not exactly pocket change!). I am pretty sure that someone who makes this investment believes that the animals they are registering are truly of a top quality, worthy of joining the ranks of AMHA. Why someone would think that the dollar amount isn't a significant enough hurdle to keep out the undesirable, I can't imagine.

My personal opinion on hardship registration in particular is that it should be opened up at any age the owner wants to gamble on. This would allow a person to show their youngsters at the local level, which in turn ensures the health of the local clubs. If the local clubs fail, a region could very quickly lose all of the AMHA shows. No qualifying for worlds. The AMHR shows would quickly take up the slack, I can assure you. No local clubs, no AMHA. It is really that simple. And honestly, how many people would take a $600-1200 gamble on a horse they thought was going over 34"? I am far from being destitute, but I can assure you I would not!

3. OVER 34" HORSES: Do we allow a breeding stock registration for overheight horses? The opinion seems to be very split on this issue. At this time, it seems most resolve the issue by dual registration. That seems an imperfect solution for AMHA, as has been pointed out in this thread. What if AMHR closes hardshipping to AMHA horses? And how much money is AMHA losing (not to mention future registration and showing revenue from the under 34" offspring of these animals, ESPECIALLY if hardship registration is closed).

Would things be different if absentee voting on the issues was allowed? I see this as being one of the primary issues! We, every member of AMHA ARE THE AMHA! So why aren't we able to get things accomplished? Getting results on a proposal requires it being voted on by the membership at the annual meeting. This meeting is held at a time that many breeders cannot get away. Traveling to the meeting can be very cost-prohibitive. There are many reasons why the membership is guided by a select few, and I see this as being THE BIG ONE. The way to really open up the leadership of this registry and have rules be decided on by the collective group is to enable and allow some sort of absentee voting. Perhaps webcasting the meeting where rule changes are presented and discussed, and having a dedicated and moderated discussion forum on the web for proposals. Have mail-in or web voting. This is not an impossible task! For heck sake, we can vote for the president of the United States by mail, why not an AMHA rule change? This might be a way to get rules effected more quickly as well. There was a sub-committee formed at the last annual meeting to investigate web voting. I signed up for it, but have never received a single correspondence on this. A big step forward I think is our ability to view a web cast of the meeting this year. KUDOS to whomever was able to get this one off the ground! But let's take the next step to truly opening up the guidance of the registry to the members, by figuring out how to open up the voting.


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Nov 3, 2007)

I've been reading this thread for days and have basically stayed out of it. I'm a relative newcomer compared to many who are in on this debate/issue, but I do have some opinions.

First of all, my interpretation of the issue is that, regardless of height, measure it accurately! This is NOT about the value of a 34.5" horse versus a 29" horse. It's about people doing their jobs with integrity and honesty.

Secondly, the registries both have very clear guidelines on height. If you don't agree, either rally to have the rules changed or live with them. If your AMHA sire and dam produce a 35" foal, &%$# happens! You know the rules, don't %$ and complain about it. That can happen when breeding anything! How about having all your horses double-registered and then you won't have to worry about it. That's what I do. I PAY for the ability to have my horses registered regardless of height.

And totally off the main subject, but since others have chosen to go here, so will I. Are people really having trouble selling their under 30" horses for a decent price? I buy AND sell my under 30" horses for great prices. If the horse is quality, it will bring a good price. And I resent the repeated reference to "dwarfy" under 30" horses. Is it more difficult to produce a conformationally correct 28" horse? Sure! But that's the challenge! I'm up to it. If you're not, that's fine, but don't make blanket statements about other breeding programs. It's too obvious and self-serving. If I have an average quality horse, I offer it for an average price. But my correct, refined tiny ones? No, they aren't going anywhere for nothing. And oddly enough, doesn't seem like my clients expect that. They'll pay if the quality is there. Just like I will when I'm purchasing new stock.

Little Kings Buck Echo is under 30". Is he dwarfy? I think not! He's not the only one that's tiny and correct; there are many out there.

OK, off my box.


----------



## Robin (Nov 3, 2007)

I love the idea of web voting or absentee voting!!!!- it is long been needed in AMHA and I have brought it up several times in the membership committee meetings and marketing meetings. It would be much easier to get people involved and play vital roles in the best interest of the association. I sure wish this one would go thru but they say no- because too much changes at the actual national meeting verses the rule proposals that they print. I think they should have the rule proposals printed- I think they should be worked out in commitee at the National Meeting, proposed there in front of the membership and directors and then e-mail notification out (at minimum) to the members who have signed up for web voting. Then they can vote at that time. Within 1 week, the totals can be done from the actual meeting results and online results and printed for the general membership.

Or another thought--- how many of you have bid online? Why can't the National Meeting be watched online and vote at the same time everyone else does....register with your member id number and password and go forward- this isn't new technology anymore!!!!

Just a thought- but I support you 100% on the absentee ballot/web voting concept. Thanks for mentioning it.

PS- I had a mental lapse when I wrote in my last post- either ASPC or "ASHR" - I meant "NSPR"- as Lisa corrected me on. Thanks Lisa!

Robin-LKF


----------



## wiccanz (Nov 3, 2007)

> I am available to measure at Nationals and Worlds, BTW- just pay my plane fare and give me somewhere to sleep.I would be fearless.


Me too! Myself and my husband are measurers here in NZ. No skin off my nose if some big time trainer throws their toys out of the cot - won't mean a darn thing to me way down her!

Either use measurers from a totally different breed background, or use measurers from FAR away who don't actually know anyone in the US.

Fortunately we don't yet have so many measuring problems down here - yes there is the occasional foot-stamping by some ignorant so-and-so, but they are told that if the measurer feels uncomfortable or intimidated, they will not be measured.

We don't measure at each show either, we have designated measuring days. Youngstock (weanlings to 2 yr olds) are measured every 3 months (or 45 days before National or Regional shows), 3-4 year olds are measured 6 monthly, and 5 and overs are measured annually. A certificate is issued for each horse, and a copy of it must be sent in with show entries. A master sheet of measured horses and their heights is sent to the Registrar after each measuring session.

If you don't like the height at which your horse was measured, you can be remeasured 3 times, and an average will be taken as the height. If you still refuse the certificate, you are not entitled to be remeasured for 28 days. And the recorded height goes on file.

Protests at shows must be made within one hour of the alleged incident (if it is concerning height, that means within 1 hour of the class the horse was entered in).

No system will ever be perfect, but at the moment, this works well for us down here.


----------



## tagalong (Nov 3, 2007)

> I am sorry, but all of this hubbub is one of the reasons I choose not to go to AMHA shows. There is always some controversey and always someone sneaking in. I am not saying that it doesn't happen in other venues, *but you can usually guarantee something "slick" going on at the AMHA shows.*


Generalizations like this help no one. And they serve no purpose. I have been to many A shows where everyone was having a great time - and nothing "slick" seemed to be tainting anything. No controversy, No uproars. Ditto for R shows - although something"slick" could be going on there as well I suppose...

Measuring can also be a questionable event at AMHR shows. Horses that win in Over are suddenly cleaning up in Under... some in the 38" class seem to tower over the others... _*shrug*_

ALL the measuring needs to standardized, regulated and cleaned up...

IMO at least Ed - out of many trainers who know what they have gotten away with in the past - is bringing things up front and center, admitting to past infractions and looking for change. It is somewhat encouraging that - contrary to what some trainers have said in the past - _the trainers do not all need to stick together._


----------



## Cathy_H (Nov 3, 2007)

For we old timers that have been on this forum since the beginning we have heard this hashed & rehased every year after the Nationals....



It usually was just the little farms & the amateurs voicing their frustrations of not getting a fair shake and not being heard................................. I find this comical really - the problem had to work its way up the food chain before the bigger fish got the message........... Until enough of the big guys jump aboard & push to get this measuring fiasco resolved, it won't happen.................... We have been showing AMHR for several years now. I have seen more & more AMHA exhibitors cross over in the last few years. Years ago some even said they would NEVER show AMHR! I just hope AMHR has eyes wide open & will require the dirty baggage be left outside the door!!! To save anyone from typing this again, Yes, I know AMHR has & will have it's share of politics & unfairness.... If /when it gets to be more than Lee & I are willing to put up with, then we can leave it too................... For those that call this bashing, how else do you propose to get the problems solved? According to some, following the proper channels doesn't always work........ We can use DNA for things unheard of years ago but we still CAN'T measure a horse properly!!! OH! Yes this is a simple procedure - even this simple housewife with just an associates degree could do it. Let me


----------

