Wow...72(at most, wonder if all of those actually voted?)making these kinds of decisions for the entire membership...?!
If there were ever an even-more-compelling reason to figure out a way to allow voting by EVERY QUALIFIED member, this seems to me to be it.
I will add, I think it is short-sighted in every way to deny hardship to horses already registered in AMHR. Isn't inspection/measurment/etc.already a requirement of the current hardship, so as to not allow 'just anything', even if already registered in 'the other' registry, in...some degree of quality control, so to speak?Isn't it time the two registries realize that it is most likely to benefit BOTH if they can be more cooperative w/ each other?? (Believe me, I am not a huge 'follower/fan' of EITHER registry, at this point; believe both could 'do better'.)
Flame away if you must; I have tough old hide.
Margo
If there were ever an even-more-compelling reason to figure out a way to allow voting by EVERY QUALIFIED member, this seems to me to be it.
I will add, I think it is short-sighted in every way to deny hardship to horses already registered in AMHR. Isn't inspection/measurment/etc.already a requirement of the current hardship, so as to not allow 'just anything', even if already registered in 'the other' registry, in...some degree of quality control, so to speak?Isn't it time the two registries realize that it is most likely to benefit BOTH if they can be more cooperative w/ each other?? (Believe me, I am not a huge 'follower/fan' of EITHER registry, at this point; believe both could 'do better'.)
Flame away if you must; I have tough old hide.
Margo