AMHA closing its books in 2013

[Little Hooves]

I've seen gorgeous B-sized minis produce A-sized foals, and of course, I've seen A-sized minis produce B-sized foals.

The recent closing of AMHA is frustrating to me. I admit, I didn't go to the meeting to cast my vote so my voice would be heard, but I couldn't justify the cost. And it looks like I wouldn't have swung the vote anyway. Recently, I've been giving this whole change more thought.

I've noticed, that despite having closed its registry, AMHR still allows hardshipping of AMHA horses. AMHR isn't obligated to do this, but they've left an opening for double-registering horses.

Why doesn't AMHA make exception for AMHR minis? Is there a reason behind closing its books to all horses? Is this an attempt to make AMHA horses more valuable?

I'm just concerned about what this will do to the foals that are A-sized, resulting from B-sized parents and only being AMHR registered. AMHR only, it appears, it "worthless" to a lot of people in my area... or maybe I haven't seen the value in those horses. Yet, I've also seen people avoid AMHA-only horses.... they still buy them because they can hardship them into AMHR. I think AMHA should allow the hardshipping of A-sized AMHR horses.

This isn't meant to cause a controversy... I'm just concerned about those AMHR-only horses out there who are just as much miniature as AMHA horses. Would it do the AMHR registry any good if they stopped hardshipping AMHA horses?

 

[Molly's Run Minis]

so, wait. is AMHA shutting down in 2013?

 

[sfmini]

AMHA is closing the studbook in 2013 which will eliminate hardship registration. Only foals from two registered AMHA parents can be registered from that point forward.

 

[Molly's Run Minis]

AMHA is closing the studbook in 2013 which will eliminate hardship registration. Only foals from two registered AMHA parents can be registered from that point forward.

oh ok. whew i almost had a heart attack

that doesnt sound fair to AMHR! they allow AMHA horses in for fairly cheap so why can't AMHA do they same?

 

[Shortpig]

Honestly if I were still breeding or just starting out I would do the AMHR only. At least in their registry if you have a foal from two A Size minis go over 34" you still have a registered horse without having to pay extra to hardship it into another registry. If you end up with an A size mini from two B size parents it is still registered automatically. With the opportunity to add the smaller B size ASPC bloodlines into your herd there will always be new bloodlines available to your breeding programs. Where will that leave the AMHA?

 

[Devon]

Honestly if I were still breeding or just starting out I would do the AMHR only. At least in their registry if you have a foal from two A Size minis go over 34" you still have a registered horse without having to pay extra to hardship it into another registry. If you end up with an A size mini from two B size parents it is still registered automatically. With the opportunity to add the smaller B size ASPC bloodlines into your herd there will always be new bloodlines available to your breeding programs. Where will that leave the AMHA?

Amen

 

[HGFarm]

There has been much discussion about this here in the past, and my sentiments EXACTLY... why do they not want to accept any size eligable horses into AMHA? It does NOT make them more valuable by closing the books. I think it is cutting off their nose to spite their face, but hey, I am just a member. I also could not make it to big meetings to vote on things, so it is left to the handful who can attend, not the general registry as a whole.

As many of you know, I had a mare that I hardshipped into A this spring. What an ordeal. Finding a person to inspect, if you live in a state where there are none, is just next to impossible. I lucked out at the LAST MINUTE.

It was very expensive. I have one mare that has gone just over 34". She is from AMHA parentage for generations. Her foal may stay under 34, but will not qualify for AMHA papers now, as I understand the cut off time for foals was 2008 to hardship.

I will be showing this filly next year- she is beautiful. My opinion? It is AMHA's loss, not mine. I like all my horses double registered, however this filly is too nice to let go and though I never desired an R only horse, I dont care now- this one is a keeper.

If I had to choose just one registry, I know which one I would stick with.....

 

[Becky]

This discussion comes up frequently. There are two distinct, recognizable miniature horse registries - AMHA & AMHR.

It always amazes me that there are those that want one to be like the other. Why is that? I, personally, like the difference between the two. One accepts horses that are 34" and under; the other accepts horses up to 38". What is the problem with having two separate registries with two separate sets of rules and regulations? I don't think either one is going away any time soon. And I see no problem with having two distinct registries set up the way they are.

I, for one, choose to breed horses that are 34" and under. When I started with miniature horses in 1989, my interest was in MINIATURE horses. I had full size horses for years. I wanted small and as always, my goal is to 'breed the smallest most perfect horse'. All of my horses are double registered so in the off chance that one goes over 34", it will maintain it's registration papers in AMHR. However, what happens if a horse goes over 38"? Is there going to be a registry to support those or should AMHR open it's books to those size horses too with the parents being 38" or under?

There could be an argument for any size horse to have some kind of papers in some registry. If one wants to breed Shetland ponies, there is a registry for that. They are beautiful and their popularity is on the increase. If one wants to breed miniature horses and don't want to worry about losing papers if a horse goes over 34", then there is AMHR. If one wants to breed miniature horses that are strictly 34" and under, then there is AMHA.

I, personally, don't see a problem with the registries being unique and different and having different rules. Being different can only help in marketing and increasing the value of all.

 

[valshingle]

Amen to Becky!

Also, AMHA Hardshipping is closing in 2013 (the end of 2013, I believe). Currently horses must be three years of age to hardship into AMHA; consequently foals born in 2010 can be hardshipped into AMHA in 2013 when they are 3 yrs old and pass inspection.

If that is not right, I'm sure someone will correct me.

 

[Little Hooves]

I have one mare that has gone just over 34". She is from AMHA parentage for generations. Her foal may stay under 34, but will not qualify for AMHA papers now, as I understand the cut off time for foals was 2008 to hardship.

Now AMHA allows horses to be permanent at 3 years old, so foals from 2010 will be the "last batch" so to speak.

In regards to each registry having its own rules, I agree that's what makes them unique... but then I don't understand why we value horses that are "double" registered to make them more marketable. And with marketing and sales falling off a cliff, I see this last-ditch effort to close the registry as a method to increase demand of existing AMHA horses. It might backfire.

When you have a "height breed," a miniature horse is a miniature regardless of being registered or not. I wish neither closed, but at least AMHR leaves a small opening for more horses to come in. AMHA is shutting off the valve completely (except for foals by registered parents).

Of course, now I'm considering starting my own registry

 

[maestoso]

My problem with closing the registry is that the goal for AMHA should be to produce the most quality horses possible. Often times, there are lines of oustanding horses that stay under 34" generation after generation and then out of no where a tall one pops up. Now this horse loses it's papers, and ability to produce registration eligible babies even though it might produce under 34" time and time again. You have eliminated a potential outstanding contributor to the breed by doing this . . .

Also, there are outstanding R horses and Shetlands, and sometimes you get small ones. Why not add these to the gene pool if they are going to make a positive impact on the quality of horses?

For me I think it's important to separate breeding from showing. I am NOT in support of adding an over showing division into AMHA. But I am very much in support of adding a breeding stock division to registration, so that taller horses have the opportunity to make a positive impact on the A minis, should they produce foals that stay under.

I support inspections in order to be hardshipped, because yes, with an open studbook there will always be someone trying to get a horse in with an offbite, bad legs, etc, and we don't want those, but the idea of eliminating outstanding horses from the gene pool seems absolutely ridiculous to me. The organization is losing money and support because of it.

I think it is important to remember that AMHA and AMHR are HEIGHT registries. We show by height, we classify by height, everything is about height. No matter what is done, minis will never be a breed organization. We can say that it is, but based on our rules, standards, the way we classify, etc, we are height, that's it. Listen to the name . . . MINIATURE horse . . . MINIATURE meaning indicative of size . . . So as long as an individual horse is capable of producing under sized minis, why not let them do it!

 

[vvf]

I don’t have a problem with AMHA closing the registry… I seem to recall that they closed it once before many, many years ago. It didn’t bother me then, as I was raising only under 34” horses.

I respect AMHA’s decision to have the 1 division. But I guess I never understood why there couldn’t be a lesser charge to hardship an AMHR division A horse for a little more reasonable price into AMHA. Does it bother me enough that I am going to lose sleep over it?, well no.

But I still think that once the registry closes, they should keep the option open to hard ship those 34” and under AMHR horses …. Just like AMHR does with the AMHA horses in their closed registry.

 

[Little Hooves]

All of my horses are double registered so in the off chance that one goes over 34", it will maintain it's registration papers in AMHR. However, what happens if a horse goes over 38"? Is there going to be a registry to support those or should AMHR open it's books to those size horses too with the parents being 38" or under?

There is always this possibility: The newest small equine recognized by the American Shetland Pony Club is the National Show Pony. National Show Ponies are required to have one registered ASPC Shetland parent or one registered AMHR Miniature parent and can measure up to a full 14.2 hands at the wither. National Show Pony division for hunters, western, and driving are currently being integrated into ASPC/AMHR shows.

I'm excited about THIS registry

I might gravitate towards it in the future.

 

[Minimor]

It matters not to me that AMHA won't accept the under 34" AMHR horses into their registry after 2013. I don't bother getting AMHA papers on my 34" & under R horses now and so for sure wouldn't be doing it in the future either.

I actually wish that AMHR had closed its books to AMHA horses as well, and not allowed anything other than ASPC registered ponies to get AMHR papers by "hardshipping". However, I can live with the fact that AMHA horses are allowed to obtain AMHR papers for an extra fee--it is good revenue for our registry!!

 

[vvf]

Minimor

It really doesn’t bother me all that much either that , that AMHA won’t accept AMHR horses…

But just as an example….I bought an AMHA only stallion a couple years ago…. If I had not been able to hardship him into AMHR, I would have passed on him. But on the other hand, if i found the right AMHR only stallion, I would buy him.. (even though I couldn't hardship him into AMHA)

I don’t exactly know what the future holds for me, but I feel that AMHR is going to be my primary registry, as I really like what I am seeing.

 

[Reble]

I am for change, it can be good, let's see what happens, as you say they can always change again.

 

[horsehug]

Yes I personally think it will be interesting to see what will happen as time goes by and lots more unregistered horses are out there, because of the close in 2013....some of them very very nice ones and under 34" but unable to be registered.

You never know......they might open up the hardship again. Stranger things have happened.

I was sure surprised to see them go back to the 3 year age for permanent status from 5 years. I remember back when it was 3 years many years ago and they voted to make it 5.

Nothing is set in stone.

Susan O.

 

[ruffian]

I think closing the AMHA books will strengthen the miniature horse "BREED". It will allow it to become a "Breed" based on bloodlines, while maintaining the height. I was at an AMHA/AMHR show recently, and was shocked by the differences in the horses in the 2 associations. There is a distinct difference, and with AMHR allowing more and more ponies into their registry, the differences will be substantial. I prefer AMHA type horses, but there are no AMHA shows within 200 miles. If there were, I would be strictly AMHA.

The POA has a height restriction also, and nobody calls them a "height" breed. If the POA goes over, it's out of the registry. Period. Not makinga whole new division.

 

[disneyhorse]

Just because they close it, doesn't mean they can't re-open it in the future.

Andrea

 

[Lewella]

I think closing the AMHA books will strengthen the miniature horse "BREED". It will allow it to become a "Breed" based on bloodlines, while maintaining the height. I was at an AMHA/AMHR show recently, and was shocked by the differences in the horses in the 2 associations. There is a distinct difference, and with AMHR allowing more and more ponies into their registry, the differences will be substantial. I prefer AMHA type horses, but there are no AMHA shows within 200 miles. If there were, I would be strictly AMHA.

The POA has a height restriction also, and nobody calls them a "height" breed. If the POA goes over, it's out of the registry. Period. Not makinga whole new division.

POA is a height registry as well as a color registry - it is NOT a breed registry. Until recently AQHA was NOT a breed registry - it was technically a color registry as it discrimited in registration based upon color. It took a major lawsuit for AQHA to become a breed registry (still an open one btw as they accept Thoroughbred in the appendix registry). That lawsuit in Texas ruled that AQHA x AQHA MUST = AQHA (embryo transfer lawsuit) which essentially forced them to open the book to the formerly denied crop outs and double dilutes.

In reality very few registries are truly breed registries. To be truly a breed registry all foals resulting from registered horse x registered horse will themselves be eligible to be registered horses (only exception - heritable genetic defects such as dwarfism, cryptorchidism, parrot mouth, etc.). A registry really cannot be termed a breed registry unless this happens.

Lewella