A thought i had regarding the amha rule change

[ckmini]

I haven't measured but I suspect I have a "new" 30 and under stallion by this rule. . . . I'm curious to see what my 36" gelding would measure in at, he has very prominent withers.

I don't show AMHA (over half of my show string is AMHR (or ASPC) only), I'm not even a member of AMHA (although I have several AMHA/AMHR). But it will be interesting to see what happens in the next 5 years or so.

 

[capall beag]

I think the OP has a very good point.

How odd that some people are sick of hearing about people discussing such a big issue!!

Seems odd if people weren't discussing it

Who ever head of horseslegally getting smaller overnight

 

[Dona]

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.

I agree with you.

And I have always taken offense that only the members who make it to a National meeting have the "right" to vote. We are made to feel like if we can't make the "effort" to come, then we have no right to gripe. NOT! :arg!

It's that "holier than thou" attitude that really burns my ***!

How many members aren't retired & able to go anytime they want?

How many members aren't able to come because of work? (Yes..there are a lot of people who actually CAN'T take off any time they want!) OH!

How many members "may" get off for a week's vacation, but want to spend it with their family?

(can't blame them for that!)

How many members can't go to the National Meeting because of financial reasons? The way things are nowdays, near depression, there are many members who are barely getting by & are actually having to sell off some of their horses.

How many members cannot get away because they have no help to take care of their horses/animals while they are gone?

How many people cannot attend the meeting because they are ill, or relatives are ill?

There are many, many valid reasons why a lot of members cannot go to the National Meeting. Doesn't mean they don't care or wouldn't LIKE to be there! Why should they be discriminated against & refused the right to vote on important matters that will directly affect them! They have paid their dues, their registration fees, and many have supported shows.....they are FULL PAYING MEMBERS! It's not right that they don't have a vote in club matters just because they weren't able to attend one meeting! And to assume they don't "know enough" about matters to vote, just because they aren't at the meeting...is absurd & insulting! If there is less than 1% of the membership in attendance at the National Meeting.....what kind of "cross section" of information are you going to get there anyway? I think there has been much more discussion & information right here on the Forum!

As far as I'm concerned.... there is NO excuse for not allowing every member to have a vote...whether it's online, or mail-in. It's the only FAIR way!

 

[Boinky]

you know whata they should do..is do the same ole voting at the conventions. If it passes and it's a "major" issue then it should have X amount of days for protests or requests for membership voting to approve or overturn. If that was the way it was, in say a situation such as this the membership can ask for a full membership vote and be allowed to vote. that way it's not like they are forced to have a membership vote for every little matter but if something DID come up at the convention the membership could choose to have a say in a major issue and it would make it easier for them to bring it up and get the vote instead of proposing new rule changes and going through all the hoopla of waiting months and months for the next meetings/conventions and then only havign the same ole small group voting against it again.

Hope that makes sence

 

[Mona]

Dona, I am behind you all the way with the words you have written in your post!

Boinky, I think that is a great idea!!

 

[Tango]

Maybe it's time for a major change in how and when things are voted on and become rules/bylaws.

Instead of voting and passing proposed changes at the National Meeting every year, why not bring to the National Meeting the items to be discussed and then decide which of those items should be placed on a write-in ballot included with the end-of-year annual membership renewal so that EVERY MEMBER, when sending in their renewal check, can also vote and mail in their ballots at the same time. Then, at the next Annual Meeting, the results of the balloting are presented, and at that time the items that were voted on can then by passed or not depending on the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP ballot counts.

Then it starts over again - bringing items to the National Meeting, decide what to put on the end of the year ballot - renewals and ballots are sent in at the end of year, results presented at the Annual Meeting......

That should be the cycle of the whole process. That way, every member has the opportunity to vote.

If you think the cost of mailing would be expensive, then perhaps a balloting fee could be charged and paid by those that send in their ballots along with their membership renewal.

Nikki Faubus

 

[LisaB Ozark]

I am sure that it has been stated before - but can someone tell me when this rule comes into effect?

Thanks, Lisa

 

[Mona]

I am sure that it has been stated before - but can someone tell me when this rule comes into effect?

Thanks, Lisa

January 2009.

 

[Lucky-C-Acres-Minis]

Ok, I have a question... I have a horse who was AMHA/AMHR registered, but measured over 34" so previous owner had the papers pulled.. Now, if this rule passes, and the horses measures in for AMHA which I believe it will though I haven't went out to find this new measuring point, how would I go about getting AMHA papers again? Or would I not be able to since the horse had already 'lost' them? I'm new to AMHA so don't know all the ins and outs yet..

 

[dali1111]

If you think the cost of mailing would be expensive, then perhaps a balloting fee could be charged and paid by those that send in their ballots along with their membership renewal.

I know I'd pay to have my vote count.

 

[Songcatcher]

Ok, I have a question... I have a horse who was AMHA/AMHR registered, but measured over 34" so previous owner had the papers pulled.. Now, if this rule passes, and the horses measures in for AMHA which I believe it will though I haven't went out to find this new measuring point, how would I go about getting AMHA papers again? Or would I not be able to since the horse had already 'lost' them? I'm new to AMHA so don't know all the ins and outs yet..

No one seems to know the answer to this question yet.

 

[Lucky-C-Acres-Minis]

QUOTE(Lucky-C-Acres-Minis @ Mar 2 2008, 10:27 PM)
Ok, I have a question... I have a horse who was AMHA/AMHR registered, but measured over 34" so previous owner had the papers pulled.. Now, if this rule passes, and the horses measures in for AMHA which I believe it will though I haven't went out to find this new measuring point, how would I go about getting AMHA papers again? Or would I not be able to since the horse had already 'lost' them? I'm new to AMHA so don't know all the ins and outs yet..

No one seems to know the answer to this question yet.

Ok thanks!! Guess I'll be watching and waiting!

 

[Mona]

Ok, I have a question... I have a horse who was AMHA/AMHR registered, but measured over 34" so previous owner had the papers pulled.. Now, if this rule passes, and the horses measures in for AMHA which I believe it will though I haven't went out to find this new measuring point, how would I go about getting AMHA papers again? Or would I not be able to since the horse had already 'lost' them? I'm new to AMHA so don't know all the ins and outs yet..

No one seems to know the answer to this question yet.

And this is exactly why I just cannot believe this even passed! Nobody seems to know the answers to all the "what ifs" that accompany the new rule! This was OBVIOUSLY pushed through too fast without enough thinking/discussion gone into before passing it. In my opinion a committee should have been formed to hash all this out to make a recommendation for or against it, before it was ever voted on!!

 

[nootka]

My feeling is this:

Please just pass the rule for measuring at the top of the withers, and then adjust our maximum height reasonably. IF the height of these legitimately (by current standards of measurement) ends up being on average 1.5" taller, then make it 35.50, with the hope that we can drop down to 34" AT THE WITHERS within a dozen years? Is that too much to ask, or do we have to play these ridiculous games of pretending a 36"+ horse is really a 34" horse because we are measuring at a moveable place that some small demographic selects as beneficial to them?

Don't get me wrong, it will benefit me, too, because I can far more easily find horses in the 34"-36" range that I LOVE the proportions on than I can in the 30"-32" range, but that's a WHOLE nother ball of wax.

I've got one that's probably going over, and may be over, but by the "new" rule change, he may well stay under, but it's likely that woe be to the legitimately under competition. They can't match his leg length and proportion, but that's because he's plain and simply taller.

UGH. Whatever means I can find to protest this stupid rule change, I plan to do. I would suggest a thread in which we can determine what that is, for those with little time or means to do the research to do this intelligently (such as type up form letters, gather signatures, etc. whatever we need to do).

I realize that most of us cannot travel to these events, but if that means we are out of luck in order to shape our registry's future, perhaps we need then to leave it to those who can, and move off to the AMHR and I never though I would say that.

Just maybe if they do decide to change their measuring procedure, they will listen to the majority and move to the top of the withers and then make the adjustments necessary to accomodate the truth of the "breed".

Liz

 

[HGFarm]

Since they are willing to 'grandfather' in the horses that currently have illegal papers, I really truly would like to know how all the other horses are going to be handled that played by the rules and had their papers cancelled? I am sure the amount is astronomical.

How does AMHA feel this is going to be cost effective when they only have '60 members' left in 2009 and no integrity world wide to market horses with?

Many people would benefit from this new rule, but I simply dont like the way in which is was brought about, nor the lame excuses given as to why it was brought about and some thinking that the AMHA membership is gullible enough to not see this for what it is.

I too, dont think that a major change should be allowed to be voted on by those few lucky enough to be able to attend the meeting to vote.

Since this registry is a 501 c 5, the records of who voted on what, and who presented what and who made a motion on what, is a matter of public record for ALL members to see...I for one, would like to see the names on that list.

 

[Horsefeathers]

I am not currently a member of AMHA, though I am a memeber of other registries and clubs, so what I have to say may not matter, but as an outsider looking in, I have a question.....

For those who purposely cheat (i.e. sewing manes, hairspraying, etc...), and are caught what is the punishment? I grew up showing Arabs, and knew a trainer in the Arab world who was caught cheating and was banned from showing, by the Association, for 2 years.... I was just curious how strict the rules are, and how well they are enforced at shows.

Also, let's just say (hypothetically) that almost everyone knew about the possibility of this MAJOR rule change, it seems that it wouldn't matter, because unless you were there for the meeting, your opinion doesn't count. I believe in ANY organization, if you are a paying member, your opinion has a right to be heard, especially on such an already sensitive subject. Every member should have the right to vote on EVERY issue that affects the entire club.

I must say, I know EVERY organization has their faults and problems, but for the breed as a whole, and with AMHA being such a major registry, this just doesn't look good. I have many friends that are "Big horse people", who aren't crazy about mini's, and to them this just makes it worse. Any credibility the miniature horse world had before is shakey at best now.

Just my opinions... Please no flames.

Chris

 

[gvpalominominis]

I've been pretty busy the past few weeks and haven't caught all of the strings on this subject, but there are a few comments I'm curious about. Someone said it sounded fishy that they got this voted in under the radar, so to speak. If memory has it, hasn't this been an ongoing subject and there been several times the height issue has been addressed... and not passed or shoved aside?

Personally, I think they did the right thing. Now at least, if a horse itches off its mane, it gets rubbed off by wearing a blanket, or accidently clipped off... they aren't all the sudden an inch taller.... and possibly disqualified from being shown. IMO making the point of measure just behind the wither (where most mane hair stops anyway) makes sense.

I'd be pretty darn hot if they made it to the top of the wither and added 1.5" (35.5") to the standad for the adjustment, and my 'Permanant' horse that measures in at the last mane hair at 33.75", but has a tall wither and measures in at 36" and his papers are pulled!!!

At least with the behind the wither measurement, its close, if not the same to the current standard measurement already, that they don't have to amend the standard 34"... even if it means it 'helps' a minority of horses now measure in....(which they could have just had short mane growth!), but I highly doubt its going to eliminate a horse because they couldn't figure out the best/fair height adjustment to keep current horses in height because the size of the wither varies so much. If they had to add 2 or 2.5" to the current height standard for adjustment, that could also 'help' certain horses become 'in height'... did you think of that?

Which is the worst of two evils.... a few horses now measure in height because of the rule change.... or horses that have been measuring in, now get booted out? I lot more changes and modifications would have to be done by changing the rule to the top of the wither - grandfather clauses etc. I agree that it would have been best... the top of the wither... at the start... or never changed it to the mane, but that's not the case.

Seems to be kinda sad that a really awesome horse that could offer a lot to the breed can measure out simply because of how or where its mane hair grows. Not because of its imperfections or even body structure.

Joanne

 

[Mona]

Seems to be kinda sad that a really awesome horse that could offer a lot to the breed can measure out simply because of how or where its mane hair grows.

...or how low their back is, or how high the top of the withers are, and so on, and so on, and so on. There will always be some problem, because structurally, all horses are built differently.

The only real remedy to this whole fiasco is to simply CONTROL the cheating! PUT A [SIZE=14pt]STOP [/SIZE] TO IT! PUNISH those that think they are above following the rules that are set for EVERYONE!

Why should the entire membership have to change the rules and bylaws to suit a few cheaters???!!! TELL ME WHY??!!!

 

[maestoso]

PLEASE DO NOT MENTION NAMES OR TOPICS WILL BE REMOVED!!

 

[sdmini]

JoAnne I understand you point but you know the old saying, "close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades".

No matter where you draw the line there are always going to be those that crowd it "close". Yes we are losing some really good horse that have fell just a few quarters of an inch on the wrong side of the stick but we are a miniature horse association are we not? Without the height guidelines we might as well be breeding Arabians, would make it a lot easier to get one that looks like an Arabian if they actually were one.

Would I be upset if I got to a show only to have my hand slip and take of some mane hair, yes? Same as I would be upset if I got to the show only to have my horse come down with a bug making them unable to show.

As much as I dislike the new rule I would not be so against it if we had some factual data. AMHA has always been an association that made sure the t's were crossed and i's dotted yet have took some information on face value that has changed the very fabric of the association. I am not a fact junkie I do not pour over records and text books to glean off tidbits of knowledge but I do like to have enough information to keep myself from looking like a fool ALL the time. Unless someone can show me where AMHA had official measurements showing no less than a 100 horses (this effects 10's of thousands remember) where there mane measures and where the divot measures I feel they jumped the gun.

For the record I really don't care to, at this time, measure at the top of the withers. I wish in the beginning they would have done so but at this time I'm not going to push for that. No matter where we measure there will be cheaters, mane, base or top of the withers no measuring stick is going to stop that BUT the person running the stick has a world of power.