Well, MY honest opinions include these:That EVERY organization like the AMHA has an obligations to its members, who have PAID FOR the rights that membership confers, to see to it that ALL vital member information is available WITHOUT ADDITIONAL cost above that of the membership itself,AND in a timely manner, to all members. In this technological age, that means placing ALL such information on the official website, AS WELL AS in the breed magazine,sending it out via emails to all members who have provided email addresses-and, where necessary, mailing it via the USPS. I am not breeding-likely never will again,and I am not breed showing; does that make my membership and previous LONG years of strong support for AMHA, no longer important nor valid???? When I see an organization I was once passionate in my support of, now taking actions I see as hasty, ill-conceived, embarrassing in the eyes of the world, and very likely, harmful to its own future (and didn't see coming because I don't pay to subscibe to the breed magazine--and which informations apparently wasn't available on the website--is there any proof that it was?)-am I just supposed to keep quiet and slink away? I have 21 years of the MHW-EVERY issue-and all sent FIRST CLASS, paying the extra, stacked in my spare bedroom....but my situation has changed; I have to make hard choices, so I chose not to spend $36 for six yearly issues that take forever to arrive). This means I should just be told 'too bad'; you should be paying for the magazine?????? I don't THINK SO. I fully accept the point that has now been made, and made again--that it IS a member's responsibility to READ what is written on AMHA matters--I agree, in fact--but I also feel it behooves ANY such organization to BEND OVER BACKWARDS to make such information WIDELY and FULLY available--and there is certainly at least some doubt that this was the case recently. Had I seen it, however, I might well have felt as several others, including a committee member, have STATED they did--that they couldn't believe that any horseperson could or would take such an idea(measuring height to the 'base of the withers')seriously!!!!!!!
Additionally--there have been numerous references to how 'base of the withers'(where is the scientific justification for there being a reliably identifiable 'place' of this designation??) measurement would 'stop', or 'lessen' or 'fix', or ???- cheating at measurement. If you read the AMHA Rulebook, a very adequate set of rules is already there, regarding measurement; other members have said this, and I will say it again...CHEATING has occurred, and continued to occur, because it has been TOLERATED, and in my own direct experience, sometimes(if not often) ALLOWED and AIDED, by the measurers--and 'starting at' the National level.....Is it bad--Oh, yes! WHY? Because it has INCREASINGLY been tolerated...and it is among the less-endearing aspects of human nature that if law/rule-breaking is 'allowed'-that is, discipline is NOT meted out AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE, many will 'push' further and further, AND resent and resist returning to following the rules more and more. You will NEVER 'end' all attempts to cheat, but you can make MUCH of a difference when/if you have the intestinal fortitude, beginning at the top, AND clearly supporting the same at lower level shows, to ENFORCE the rules you already have!!! How can changing from one not-terribly-subjective if everyone involved is following current rules), out-of-the-equine mainstream, location to measure, to one even more so, POSSIBLY be thought to offer the "answer" to cheating?
Margo
OH!
