A thought i had regarding the amha rule change

[Leeana]

I've been sick this past week so i've had allot of time to think

. Now some of you may not like me for this BUT it was only a thought that popped into my head.

One has to wonder if the reason this rule was proposed was bc the people who proposed the rule had over horses they just wanted to make under? Which IS cheating the system. I mean, it could be a possibility.

Example

Joe schmo is some big AMHA trainer and he has a few horses standing out in his pasture that hold AMHA papers but measure 34.2 or 34.5" tall AND that 34.5" horse would really kick butt in the show ring! He also has horses right on that 34" mark that can be a real toss up when he goes to have them measued in at the show. What does he do? He sits down and goes hmmmm i have this 34.5" horse that would do AMAZING in the show ring, how can i get him to measure under 34"? By golly i got it, lets measure them lower and take out two birds with one stone! So Joe Schmo calls up AMHA and puts forth this rule change and says "it will make our horses smaller" EI ...will make his OVER horses UNDER horses and the world is fine and dandy agian and he gets that 34.5" horse to measure in the new system at 33.5" and his world is complete once agian.

I just think its going to be interesting when they start measure this way and some of these older sr horses go to be measured in and they come out right at 34" at the bottom of the withers, well i guess they were obviouslly over before. I think it will also be interesing to see who own these horses and where they stood in the beginning of the rule proposal

.

Just a different view on why this rule change COULD (not saying this is why) but it was just a simple thought that popped into my head.

Im now going to put on my flame suit and go out and work the horses

 

[Jill]

It sure has the feel of funny stuff going on, doesn't it?

You know, as floored as I am with the new style of measuring, it actually benefits me. I have an AMHR only broodmare. She's absolutely gorgeous and I measure her right under 34", but she has AMHR B papers that show her at 34.5". I never could get her at that height and have thought about hardshipping her into AMHA but worried "what if" she measured taller for the inspection. Well, now I guess just wait until 2009 so I can have 33" on those papers!

Then, I've got another tall grey filly. She's AMHA/AMHR and looks like she's got a shot at legitimately keeping her AMHA's at maturity right now.

It also favors, in my opinion, more refined horses as they tend to have more pronounced withers. All of my show horses do at least... So, while I think it reeks of funny business and is flat out a laughable way to measure a horse, when all is said and done, it does make one obstacle I've been juggling a total piece of cake now.

And, you know, just proves what I think so many times. Horse people are crazy.

 

[Mona]

Yep, right on!

 

[wpsellwood]

This has been repeated over and over again so many of the threads myself I sick of reading about. You couldnt of just added this statement to one of the other threads that says the same thing??? Replies are basically the same also.

Get over it already

 

[Mona]

Sorry, but until some of us hear that the new rule is changed or overturned, there won't be any "getting over it already".

 

[Jill]

This has been repeated over and over again so many of the threads myself I sick of reading about. You couldnt of just added this statement to one of the other threads that says the same thing??? Replies are basically the same also.

Get over it already

When you saw the topic title and decided to open it, what did you anticipate reading about? I think people keep talking about it because it's important to them.

 

[wpsellwood]

Well good then maybe someone will work to get it changed but as I suspect just like 2 yrs ago and hoopla about the way AMHR was measuring that year and hundreds of post and nothing was changed. Same with AMHA, not picking on either club.

I for one dont care either way about the measuring system, just tired of hearing the whining about it.

Broken record.

 

[Alex]

So all this is is a humble of junk to you?!! Who said that that ONE time war set all be all. Come on, If you dont care about all this,leannas opinion, or anyone elses, why are you posting? Think about it...

 

[Buckskin gal]

I am not going to worry about it because I truly believe if there are enough sincere members who object to this in the proper way, we will never see the minis being measured at the base of the wither. I have given a lot of thought to the matter and do want to believe it was done for the right reasons and nothing else...to stop at least the cheating by manipulating that last hair to be measured...it was a problem! In the end, I do hope all members will accept what the majority will rule and get on with breeding and owning the minis we so dearly love. Mary

 

[wpsellwood]

I opened the topic cuz I thought it might be something positive on trying to change the rule that most dont agree with. Like I said I dont care either way as long as everyone has to do it. But it wasnt bascially same thing posted on another thread. Same theory.

 

[bingo]

This has been repeated over and over again so many of the threads myself I sick of reading about. You couldnt of just added this statement to one of the other threads that says the same thing??? Replies are basically the same also.

Get over it already

When you saw the topic title and decided to open it, what did you anticipate reading about? I think people keep talking about it because it's important to them.

Exactly Jill. This effects the entire core of AMHA and everything they claim to stand for. This effects all the marketing and talk for years that only they had the true miniature horse. Now all of a sudden AMHA is allowing larger horses in knowing full well what they are doing so to those who are new your right nothing will seem different. Those that have been in this industry for a while will see this smoke screen for what it is.

I think the thing that angers most is that AMHA will now allow those 35 inch or in some cases bigger horses in yet still talk about how they are the premier registry since nothing is over 34 inches.

Nothing is wrong with this decision if they call it what it is - 34+ inch horses legally entering the registry bringing along with them there genetics and probability to produce more 35 inch horses.

If you or anyone else is tired of this subject then simply exercise your right to not read it! Something that shakes a registry to the very core is worthy of being discussed.

 

[Mona]

This has been repeated over and over again so many of the threads myself I sick of reading about. You couldnt of just added this statement to one of the other threads that says the same thing??? Replies are basically the same also.

Get over it already

When you saw the topic title and decided to open it, what did you anticipate reading about? I think people keep talking about it because it's important to them.

Exactly Jill. This effects the entire core of AMHA and everything they claim to stand for. This effects all the marketing and talk for years that only they had the true miniature horse. Now all of a sudden AMHA is allowing larger horses in knowing full well what they are doing so to those who are new your right nothing will seem different. Those that have been in this industry for a while will see this smoke screen for what it is.

I think the thing that angers most is that AMHA will now allow those 35 inch or in some cases bigger horses in yet still talk about how they are the premier registry since nothing is over 34 inches.

Nothing is wrong with this decision if they call it what it is - 34+ inch horses legally entering the registry bringing along with them there genetics and probability to produce more 35 inch horses.

If you or anyone else is tired of this subject then simply exercise your right to not read it! Something that shakes a registry to the very core is worthy of being discussed.

EXACTLY!! VERY, VERY well stated!

 

[Leeana]

I skimmed through the other topics, so if someone has already posted something related to this, then i am sorry but my opinion and thoughts are just as important as anyone elses.

I posted this on a new topic because im just little ole' (young) me and on a 25 page debate my opinion is easily skipped over. I just wanted to add my thoughts

.

They are just MY thoughts, if you dont like them then there is nothing i can do, but they are how i feel

.

I know this shouldnt bother me, i didnt even renew my amha membership this year and amha (as a registry) does not play a big part into my program BUT the *breed* as a whole does ..if it affects miniaure horse it affects MY horses! I care about the breed, even if im not directly swayed toward showing/breeding amha. AMHA has many things i like about them, this is just not one of the things

.

 

[sedeh]

Well I'm actually afraid that Leeana is on target here. My friend and I did a horse hunting trip back east a few years back, mostly N.Carolina and then up to Delaware. We went to a very well known farm and they had some very nice horses.....but a lot of them looked "over" to me. They showed us a 2 yo filly and I said she looked "over" so they got the stick to measure her. I happened to be holding the mare so I set her up square.......the owner says "let my daughter do it, she knows how to set them up better". Next thing I know the horse is doing a spread eagle pose.....legs stretched way out in front and back and then the owner measures the center of her back! I guess they thought we were just "hicks" from Oregon but it infuriated me! Mare still measured 33+.....we said no thanks and left their place. So I know they would benifit greatly from this rule change. Come to think of it......so will I! I have a nice 2 yo filly that I'm afraid is going to go over or be very close.....with this new method I think she'll be just fine!

But I'd rather they measure top of wither.....or coronet band to top of wither would be very good.

 

[Minimor]

I for one dont care either way about the measuring system, just tired of hearing the whining about it.

I actually haven't seen any whining...what I have seen is a lot of amazement and disgust that a group of people could get suckered into voting yes to this rule change. No one is whining, because this rule change actually benefits most of us--I think just about every one of us now has more horses that we could get (or keep) AMHA papers on, so what is there to whine about there?

You want to hear some whining? Just wait until this ridiculous rule change gets overturned, and the masses vote in a new rule that AMHA use the top of the withers as the measurement point. THEN you will hear a lot of whining from all the big money/big shot owners that are unable to fit their small B's into the AMHA show ring. Then you'll know what whining is all about!

 

[Suzie]

I think this is a very valid topic. I am still very upset about this and yes, now I can hardship a very nice unregistered 35" buckskin mare and her colt if this passes now. But it won't change the fact that she is still 35" to me. If I sold her to someone, I would feel like I sold them a 35" mare. And it would bother me. I have tried to find this bottom of the withers and all my AMHR only horses will now be AMHA registerable if I measure correctly. But saying that they are AMHA does not make them any smaller......

It still goes back to one thought for me. Yes I think this was proposed by people who realized there was going to be some changes in how the stewards are going to be doing their measuring now due to pressure from everyone to be FAIR and that there was going to be accountability at some point and their nice "over" horses were going to get thrown out. The best way to head this off was to "change the way the horses are measured". I have been told by several people this has been in the "cooker" now for some time. Was this fair? No.

My problem with this change is when the horse "outgrows" this way, what is next? Like government, when you give them an "inch" next thing you know, it turns into a mile. At what point does it stop? When the "34" horse is now 40"? We all know how this is done. Slip one over fast time on us this year, what makes it hard to do it 5 years from now? Nothing. I don't show much, but this affects show people and NON show people the same.

The way to fix it is to make the measuring adhere to the original rules- eliminate the cheaters and yes, probably their pocketbooks too but do we want cheaters holding such a huge s financial way in the registry anyway? Changing the way we measure is NOT going to eliminate cheating. However, it will allow those who might have cheated before to walk in the door and not have to worry anymore....that is until their 37" horse starts to win and grow...

Give ALL the current members an absentee ballot to vote on any such major changes in the future. See what the general membership thinks of this. That is the only way to assure membership support of a major change anyway. Obviously if there is so many threads on this, LOTS of people are upset with this change.

Finally, if you disagree and don't voice your opinion, don't ever rely on "things turning out right". Please look at history and think, if we had done NOTHING, what would have happened???? Doing NOTHING is not an option for me. As long as I pay my dues and abide by the rules, my opinion will be heard. It may be disregarded, but I will still voice it. If AMHA accepts this and just shrugs off the impact on so many members, I will have to revisit my membership with them. I want to be part of registry that stands for integrity, not bend to pressure from a few that affects us all.

Flame away......

 

[Songcatcher]

One has to wonder if the reason this rule was proposed was bc the people who proposed the rule had over horses they just wanted to make under? Which IS cheating the system. I mean, it could be a possibility.

My gut feeling says you are right on. Of course, many of them are saying that it only makes a quarter of an inch at most. I think we all know that is not right.

I wonder what their next step is when the next generation grows even taller.

One thing I think we all need to keep in mind when we talk about AMHA doing this, is that it was done by approximately 60 people. Not a very good representation of AMHA in my opinion.

As much as the idea disgusts me, I will continue to breed for the smallest possible correct horse.

 

[bingo]

My gut feeling says you are right on. Of course, many of them are saying that it only makes a quarter of an inch at most. I think we all know that is not right.

That is the part that confuses me the most. How somehow just a handful of people can say they measured horses and it made hardly a difference at all when the rest of us are seeing a difference of up to and over 1 inch. Which lends more proof to Leeana's thought IMO

 

[Fred]

Putting on my flameproof suit

but who were the 60 people who voted on this rule? Makes one wonder and I bet we know most of them. I also know MANY of us cannot afford to go to a convention as work is a priority to feed the horses we have and keep a roof over our heads. Yes it is important to keep informed but this "rule" will tend to affect all miniatures and I do think it was downplayed to pass. I think as a whole though this ruling seriously undermines the integrity of the registry.

 

[Relic]

Well we did measure most of the mature mares and stallions over the past week and measuring them at the hole as l call it because if l'm wrong thats the only place that would be the lowest spot after the withers and before the back and most of them all measured at about the same or maybe a quarter inch shorter...l was worried about my fave guy and hoping he would be a bit shorter as he's pushing 34 now at 3 years old but he measures the same last hair and bottom of withers but is close to 35 at the top of the withers which also was the same for my daughters performance horse who is 7 years old and has been 33 inches since she was 3 who would also top out around 35 at the top of the withers....so for us it didn't make a drastic change like it has with some other farms