AMHA is CLosing Their Books!! As well as a new Height rule change!!

[Minimor]

For those of you who are still asking why it is not the top of the withers, go back towards the beginning of the posts and it is explained there several times why they decided to go this way rather than the top of the withers.

Yes, quite clearly the intention was to fix things to allow bigger horses into the registry. Measuring to the top of the withers would make too many horses--and probably their offspring--too big, and so they had to find a measurement spot that would allow these bigger horses to stay in the registry. Sorry, but that's what many of us are getting out of this.

 

[Riverdance]

Thanks so much!! I understand now how this grandfathering thing works!! You do a great job explaining things so people can understand them! One more thought though if the rules changed again to top of withers and say my horse and others were grandfathered in then in a 34" class our horses would actually really be say 35" couldn't that possibly give an advantage to the taller horses?? Just a thought maybe a dumb one!!

I doubt the rule will change to the top of the withers, as that was what was asked for to begin with. But if the rule changed, your horse would still be grandfathered in.

Yes, it would give an advantage to the taller horses that were grandfathered in, that is probably one of the biggest reasons why they decided not to go to the top of the withers.

For those of you who are still asking why it is not the top of the withers, go back towards the beginning of the posts and it is explained there several times why they decided to go this way rather than the top of the withers.

Yes, quite clearly the intention was to fix things to allow bigger horses into the registry. Measuring to the top of the withers would make too many horses--and probably their offspring--too big, and so they had to find a measurement spot that would allow these bigger horses to stay in the registry. Sorry, but that's what many of us are getting out of this.

No, the intention was not to let taller horses into the registry,(that is what the AMHR people keep saying, but it is not AMHA's intentions) but to not kick out the 33 and 34" horses (and their potential offspring) that would now be considered too tall. The taller horses would be grandfathered in, but not their offspring.

Another and perhaps bigger reason why they chose the bottom of the withers is because if one went to the top, the horses that were grandfathered in would have a height advantage in the show ring that the others would not. Plus, many of the perfomance horses are close to the 34" height and we do not want to loose those or their potential offspring.

Last, I went out and measured many of my horses, because they said at the meeting that the bottom of the withers is pretty close to where we measure now. They were right. Most of my Minis manes go to the base of the withers, a few have manes that go a little past (by 1/2" pat the end of the withers) and only one shrunk a little, and then, only a 1/4 inch.

 

[Minimor]

Regardless of where you measure, a horse is as tall as he is. No bigger, no smaller, even if you take a measurement at a spot that makes him sound taller...or smaller.

So regardless of what the AMHA intention is/was, the point is, you are keeping the taller horses in as well as allowing their offspring (also taller, or at least that's a definite possibility). You've just said that the horses that would grandfather in would quite possibly be too tall if measured at the top of the wither, and even worse, their offspring would probably be too tall if they had to be measured at the top of the wither, and therefore if measurement from the top of the wither was used, all these offspring of these grandfathered horses would be out. So, in view of that, how can you then turn around and tell me/us that this rule change isn't allowing the taller horses in??? Of course it's allowing the taller horses in--horses that would be too tall if they had to be measured in another spot such as the top of the withers--you've said it yourself, several times over.

And obviously all horses are different--my horses nearly all have their mane ending up on their withers--not right at the highest point of the withers, but partway down the back of the withers...you can SEE that the wither continues to angle down from where the last mane hair is located. So regardless if I am feeling the right notch in the spine or not, the "right" one has to be lower than the last mane hair if that notch is supposed to be the base of the wither. As I said on one of the other threads, one gelding I checked actually had THREE notches that I could feel,and no one of those three was any more obvious than any of the others. Just the way his spine is, I could feel the space between each pair of vertabrae in that area--and that's all that notch is, a space between two vertabrae. Obviously not all horses have a very obvious "drop off" where wither and back join.

 

[Boinky]

You know i'm very impressed to see so many people opposed to this. From a purely selfish standpoint MANY MANY people could stand to benefit from this rule. Many horses that were out are now in, but from an ethical viewpoint i see many of you seem to be taking the high road and despite it being benificial to you individually or even as a large group of people it's a moral/ethical issue to the rest of the world (other horse breeds, foriegn breeders ect) and it needs to be solved. I'm happy to see that many are seeing it as a real problem not matter how much we'd like our own horses to be in.

 

[Jean_B]

No, the intention was not to let taller horses into the registry,(that is what the AMHR people keep saying, but it is not AMHA's intentions) but to not kick out the 33 and 34" horses (and their potential offspring) that would now be considered too tall. The taller horses would be grandfathered in, but not their offspring.

HUH !?!?!?!?!?

This makes ABSOLUTELY no sense at all!!!!!!!!! OH! Not kick out the 33" & 34" horses??? THEY ARE ALREADY LEGAL. For crying out loud!!!!!! This is getting totally ridiculous.

OK - perhaps there IS an ulterior motive in doing this which a lot of people are thinking (I've had several people call me expressing their opinion on WHY this is happening....and I happen to agree!)

Let's see - we start measuring below the withers...and low & behold...all those 35" horses are now eligible for Hardshipping!! Yup....that's a lot of greenbacks coming into the somewhat stretched AMHA coffers. Call my a cynic, call me whatever you want...but I think this is a ploy to get a lot of people to cough up a LOT of money to hardship ... and voila!! the organization is solvent again! Will miracles never cease!! Yup - I'm a cynic. And if you think the reason for doing this is something to do with less cheating...I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

 

[Boinky]

lol jean..sounds like a pretty logical and probably when it boils down to it the truthful reason!

 

[Riverdance]

Regardless of where you measure, a horse is as tall as he is. No bigger, no smaller, even if you take a measurement at a spot that makes him sound taller...or smaller.

So regardless of what the AMHA intention is/was, the point is, you are keeping the taller horses in as well as allowing their offspring (also taller, or at least that's a definite possibility). You've just said that the horses that would grandfather in would quite possibly be too tall if measured at the top of the wither, and even worse, their offspring would probably be too tall if they had to be measured at the top of the wither, and therefore if measurement from the top of the wither was used, all these offspring of these grandfathered horses would be out. So, in view of that, how can you then turn around and tell me/us that this rule change isn't allowing the taller horses in??? Of course it's allowing the taller horses in--horses that would be too tall if they had to be measured in another spot such as the top of the withers--you've said it yourself, several times over.

And obviously all horses are different--my horses nearly all have their mane ending up on their withers--not right at the highest point of the withers, but partway down the back of the withers...you can SEE that the wither continues to angle down from where the last mane hair is located. So regardless if I am feeling the right notch in the spine or not, the "right" one has to be lower than the last mane hair if that notch is supposed to be the base of the wither. As I said on one of the other threads, one gelding I checked actually had THREE notches that I could feel,and no one of those three was any more obvious than any of the others. Just the way his spine is, I could feel the space between each pair of vertabrae in that area--and that's all that notch is, a space between two vertabrae. Obviously not all horses have a very obvious "drop off" where wither and back join.

When I am talking about the taller horses, I am talking about the ones that measure right now at 33" to 34" at the last mane of the hair. They are already considered AMHA horses. They are not 34 1/2 horse or 35" horses but true 33" and 34" horses based upon the old AMHA measuring. If AMHA changed the rules by going to the top of the withers, technically these horses would no longer be considered AMHA horses, nor would any offspring that they may produce if they were 33" or 34" at the last mane hair. That would or could cause a major problem with many AMHA breeders who have horses close to that size. Therefore, they chose to go to the bottom of the withers which is closer to where the last mane hair is. In some cases this will let in some horses that previously were not considered AMHA eligible. Rather that, then kick out many horses that were accepted before.

I had no problem finding the end of the withers. It is not a notch, that you keep referring to. There is a "notch" inbetween each vertebra. Feel the top of the withers and how it drops off, right at the drop off is the end of the vertebra.

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

No, the intention was not to let taller horses into the registry,(that is what the AMHR people keep saying, but it is not AMHA's intentions) but to not kick out the 33 and 34" horses (and their potential offspring) that would now be considered too tall. The taller horses would be grandfathered in, but not their offspring.

Here we go again- let's make it AMHR's fault....

Lucy

 

[disneyhorse]

From the "top" of the withers and all the way down the whole back is vertebrae. WHICH vertebrae notch do we choose? The seventh vertebrae? The lowest vertebrae on the back??? I feel a notch between every single one, from the top of the withers, the side of the withers, the middle of the back... and this is only on the thinner horses. My friend's fat fat horse, can't feel anything, barely even the wither BONE.

Andrea

 

[Irish Hills Farm]

Never mind........I give up.

 

[Riverdance]

No, the intention was not to let taller horses into the registry,(that is what the AMHR people keep saying, but it is not AMHA's intentions) but to not kick out the 33 and 34" horses (and their potential offspring) that would now be considered too tall. The taller horses would be grandfathered in, but not their offspring.

HUH !?!?!?!?!?

This makes ABSOLUTELY no sense at all!!!!!!!!! OH! Not kick out the 33" & 34" horses??? THEY ARE ALREADY LEGAL. For crying out loud!!!!!! This is getting totally ridiculous.

OK - perhaps there IS an ulterior motive in doing this which a lot of people are thinking (I've had several people call me expressing their opinion on WHY this is happening....and I happen to agree!)

Let's see - we start measuring below the withers...and low & behold...all those 35" horses are now eligible for Hardshipping!! Yup....that's a lot of greenbacks coming into the somewhat stretched AMHA coffers. Call my a cynic, call me whatever you want...but I think this is a ploy to get a lot of people to cough up a LOT of money to hardship ... and voila!! the organization is solvent again! Will miracles never cease!! Yup - I'm a cynic. And if you think the reason for doing this is something to do with less cheating...I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Jean,

Get a grip. AMHA is plenty solvent. If you took the time to listen in on the meeting they are way out of debt and in the black by several HUNDRED thousand dollars. (all in only a few years from the missmanagemment) By giving up hardshipping they are giving up an income of over $56,000 year, so if AMHA was "in it for the money" they would not be giving up hardshipping.

Also, if you would really read what is trying to be said (or better yet, listened to the meeting so that you would have been fully informed and stop trying to be so ornery), you would have known that it was not an easy decision that they made regarding top or bottom of the withers. AND, IF THEY WENT TO THE TOP OF THE WITHERS MEASUREMENT THEN YES IN THE FUTURE HORSES THAT AT ONE TIME WOULD HAVE MEASURED IN AT 33" AND 34" WOULD NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR AMHA. I do not see where that does not make sense.

IF AMHR ever changes their measuring to the top of the withers, then many of your A horses would then be B horses and many of your B horses would have to loose their papers. (Unless you want to start another height registry for the over sized B horses . If AMHR does that, then who is more worried about the almighty dollar?) Also, if AMHR changed their measurements to the top of the withers, how many of the AMHR people would be up in arms because all of the sudden their horses no longer qualified for papers.

At some point a horse is not going to qualify or be show quality. Not everything that one breeds is going to make it to the show ring. Whether it is because it is oversized, a bad bite, no testicals or a Dwarf. Some of these horse will just have to be someones beloved pet. Is not that alright too?

You have to think about the people who have paid a lot of money for their horse that measures 33 1/2" tall right now. They would technically now be oversized with the top of the withers measuring. Yes, they may be grandfathered in, but they would have to worry about the offspring that would not be grandfathered in. Then there is the show ring with the grandfathered horses competing unfairly against the horses that would not qualify for being grandfathered in.

NON OF THIS WOULD EVEN HAVE HAPPENED IF THERE WERE NOT SO MANY CHEATERS OUT THERE IN BOTH AMHA AND AMHR TRYING TO GET AN OVERSIZED HORSE IN INTO A SMALLER CLASS, iINTO THE A LEVEL OF AMHR OR INTO AMHA. It is because of what has happened this year that so many people are in an uproar.

I also have one more question, since you only show AMHR why should you care what AMHA is doing?

AMHA is not busy thinking up ways of getting oversized horses into their registry, but just the opposit!!

As for the Brooklyn Bridge, I think you already bought it!!

 

[Mona]

Also, if you would really read what is trying to be said (or better yet, listened to the meeting so that you would have been fully informed and stop trying to be so ornery), you would have known that it was not an easy decision that they made regarding top or bottom of the withers. AND, IF THEY WENT TO THE TOP OF THE WITHERS MEASUREMENT THEN YES IN THE FUTURE HORSES THAT AT ONE TIME WOULD HAVE MEASURED IN AT 33" AND 34" WOULD NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR AMHA. I do not see where that does not make sense.

So tell us then...really, in all actuality, WHAT did the change in measuring methods accomplish? If the vote to measure at the withers was shot down, then what was the reason for even wanting to change it to the base? It WILL NOT stop or prevent people from argueing heights, because there will ALWAYS be ways to get around it. They (in my opinion) would have been far better off to just leave it as it was, if it could not have been changed to the withers. It just makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

 

[Gene]

I also have one more question, since you only show AMHR why should you care what AMHA is doing?

Since you only show AMHA, why should you care about AMHR OH!

 

[Riverdance]

I also have one more question, since you only show AMHR why should you care what AMHA is doing?

Since you only show AMHA, why should you care about AMHR OH!

Where have I posted anything regarding AMHR, except to say I have nothing against the club and that all of my horses are double registered. On the other hand I have had to defend AMHA from attacks by AMHR members all day.

Also, if you would really read what is trying to be said (or better yet, listened to the meeting so that you would have been fully informed and stop trying to be so ornery), you would have known that it was not an easy decision that they made regarding top or bottom of the withers. AND, IF THEY WENT TO THE TOP OF THE WITHERS MEASUREMENT THEN YES IN THE FUTURE HORSES THAT AT ONE TIME WOULD HAVE MEASURED IN AT 33" AND 34" WOULD NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR AMHA. I do not see where that does not make sense.

So tell us then...really, in all actuality, WHAT did the change in measuring methods accomplish? If the vote to measure at the withers was shot down, then what was the reason for even wanting to change it to the base? It WILL NOT stop or prevent people from argueing heights, because there will ALWAYS be ways to get around it. They (in my opinion) would have been far better off to just leave it as it was, if it could not have been changed to the withers. It just makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

Mona,

Based upon what was said at the meeting. The reason why they went to the base of the withers was because they wanted to measure on the bone rather than some arbatrary last hair of the mane. It was brought up that some trainers are sewing in mane hair to extend it down lower on the back so that the horse could then measure in, or they have left the hair longer on the back, dyed it to match the mane and then sprayed it with hairspray so that it woud feel like mane hairs. They can not do that if the measurer is feeling for the last bone of the withers. They can also not press down on the back as well in hopes that the horse will measure in.

I am sure that the cheaters will still find ways to get around this, but something had to be done. Someday it may come to be the top of the withers, but it has to be as fair as possible for all members. To me, the top of the withers is just fine.

 

[Jean_B]

I also have one more question, since you only show AMHR why should you care what AMHA is doing?

My horses are AMHA/AMHR registered .... however I CHOOSE to show on the AMHR circuit only....much NICER people for the most part, and the shows are much more fun all the way around.

 

[Kitty]

OK GUYS enough. And I mean that in a nice way.

For one -the only person that should be defending AMHA is AMHA. And verus versa for AMHR.

And email not post any negative thoughts. You both know what you feel but PLEASE and I mean in it in a very nice way STOP.

 

[kenna]

Why not change to the highest point of the withers and change the maximum height along with it? If you measure at the withers and change the max height to "36 inches," it's not like the horse's height is actually changing. The only reason I can think of for not doing this is to continue the "fraud" I guess of saying that these are 34" horses to the rest of the horse world, which they're not.

Measuring at a bone won't help much IMO, people can still stretch, push down (yes, the bone does go down if the back goes down!), trim feet down, etc...

OH!

 

[MountainViewMiniatures]

I don't think that everyone realizes that AMHA studbook is the largest in the world. Therefore, our gene pool is quite large.

Actually AQHA has a studbook of almost 5 million last time I checked in 2007, I'm sure this year's foal crop will put them over if they aren't already. AMHA is around 400,000

 

[Yaddax3]

AMHA is plenty solvent. If you took the time to listen in on the meeting they are way out of debt and in the black by several HUNDRED thousand dollars.

I listened to the financial report online and AMHA's financial director said that after 2006 AMHA had $200,000 in the bank. He also said there was an $80,000 profit in 2007.

However ...

There is a projected loss of $58,000 in 2008, due, in part, to the hiring of three new office people. Another factor for that projection could be the decline in registrations.

Despite the attempt to put a sunny spin on the organization's finances, AMHA isn't exactly swimming in money, and it needs to find a way to deal with the 9 percent decline in registrations in 2007, which the financial director also noted.

One way to address such a decline is to create a panic by saying hardships will cease in 2013. Another way is to choose a measuring system that will transform 35-inch minis into 34-inch minis, which means more hardships. Which means more money.

I can't see into the future, but I can draw conclusions. And it's my conclusion that sometime around 2012, when the AMHA coffers have been enriched by all those panic-induced and height readjusted hardships, the 2013 deadline will be rescinded or extended. It doesn't financial sense to stop accepting all that hardship money, which certainly has helped AMHA climb out of the $800,000 hole it was in back in 2003.

(Based on Riverdance's figure of more than $56,000 a year, roughly $300,000 of the $800,000 deficit was offset by hardship-generated cash. And that was before the threat of a deadline.)

It's also my conclusion that at least one person will see this as AMHA bashing and AMHR boosterism. The thing is, I have horses that are double registered, so it behooves me to want AMHA to be a vibrant, successful organization to keep up the value of my horses. At the moment, it comes off as desperate and greedy.

 

[Belinda]

[Actually AQHA has a studbook of almost 5 million last time I checked in 2007, I'm sure this year's foal crop will put them over if they aren't already. AMHA is around 400,000

Thank you Sharon , I just did not have time to get the numbers..

Ok now for the rest of all these posts..

It is time to stop the Maddnes and the bickering..