AMHA MEMBERS THAT WANT TO VOTE BY MAIL OR INTERNET BALLOTS.......read this

[Neil]

Neil,

Can you please explain that by adding online voting for the membership it is not going to cut down on the Annual Meeting Cost?

Because the Annual Meeting still has to happen as does the June BOD/Committees meeting and probably several BOD and/or EC conference calls. The AMHA needs these meetings to conduct business. The Feb and June meetings require conference facilities and equipment that is not cheap these days.

Can you tell me exactly how many members AMHA does have?

There was another thread that covered this and I think it was agreeded that the number was more in the 6,000 range.

Since you work so hard and do SO MUCH can you explain why you are not going to the June Meeting?

My reason has nothing to do with this thread nor this forum.

Can you tell me how I can work for AMHA? [...] What could we do with that for AMHA?

Good question. You might start by looking at the AMHA Committees and see if there would be a fit for you on one of them. You might also contact the Show Manager for the three Championship Shows and the World Show and ask if there is any help needed there.

All I can say is that I showed up at the World Show in '05 without a horse to show and casually made the comment that if anyone needed any help I was available. The next thing I knew I was working in the measuring area for the next three years handling paper work and occasionally measuring some horses. When I wasn't in the measuring area the second year Sid had me working the back gate pulling horses for drug testing and when needed moving trophies from the office area down to the center island. None of these require any special skills but a willingness to do work that needs to be done to keep the show moving.

I am still in shock that AMHA is still using DOS?....Is that correct, or am I wrong again?If you are not aware I am young enough I barely remember what DOS is.

I am told that this is true and I am old enough to remember that my first programming classes were in DOS.

If I am correct please explain our computer system? Why such a failure?

I have no idea just guesses. You might want to talk to members of the Internet Communications Committee,

Can you tell me why AMHA is wanting to measure from the Withers instead of the last hair of the mane? ( because I already know)....I want to see what you have to say about it.

I have already commented on this and I could care less where they measure, just be consistent on how they measure.

How many members do you think you just offended by saying the majority don't care?

Probably none because those that don't care don't care and weren't listening. I am guessing that you do care and were listening so I wasn't talking about you.

Does that make members feel like we want someone like you in our office or voting for us?

I am not sure I totally understand this question. I am not in "our" office nor have I ever been. As for my voting I vote for what I feel is best for the Association.

[...] Oh, I forgot we don't care about AMHA.

Why do you keep putting yourself in the "we don't care" group? I thought you did care.

quote text follows I guess I have used one to many quotes

Please if I can work from home on the internet for AMHA please let me know. I am sure they are SEVERAL others that would love to do the same thing. Let us uncaring members know how we can work for AMHA. You just may be surprised how many would be willing to do it over the internet.

quote text ends

I am not the person to ask this question but if you can find the right people hopefully you can find an area where you can help.

quote text follows

Oh, I would be willing to set the forum up for AMHA - If we can get online voting.

quote text ends

Why will you only help in one area if another thing happens? I have been lobbying for an AMHA member forum. If it ever comes to pass help will be needed from the membership.

quote text follows

I am sure they are lots of jobs for us uncaring members that we could do from home on the internet. Just let us know.

quote text ends

I don't know who you should talk to but I am sure the offer would be appreciated.

 

[McBunz]

Bump

 

[LisaF.]

Neil,

First, I want to thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

I am also going to be very honest, you hurt my feelings and insulted me by talking about my writing ability. I realize after that I am sure I said some hurtful things also. So, I am hoping this time we could have a civil converstation.

I still do not understand if the Annual meeting cost $42,762.00 how it would not be cost effective to the AMHA to do the online voting. Call me thick headed, but I still don't understand. Also, others have posted on this thread how the online or mail in ballet cost could be offset.

As far as our computer system goes I do appreciate your honesty in telling me you really don't know. I just can not believe in this day and age that a company like AMHA would be using DOS. It is like AMHA is in the dark ages. I just can't get over it.

As far as me putting myself in the members that don't care I took this as you were talking about me ( and others ) because you posted - The majority of members on this forum want to vote, but not do any of the work. I still think you are wrong about that, but I guess we can agree to disagree.

You posted that I had either forgot or not read post because I posted aproximatly 12,000 members. I had read many post and this was the number I seen posted the most. Not, the 6,000 members that you estimated. - We have that taken care of now - We know the total is 10,720 paid members.

I did word it wrong I did not mean I would only work on a forum if we got online voting to pass. I would love to see a AMHA Only forum to discuss issues at hand. If I understand your post correctly you have been wanting this also and have been trying for one. Who have you been talking too?...I would like to talk to them also and I would be willing to try and help get this passed. I would want this forum to be for AMHA issues ONLY.

You stated that you had already posted on how you felt about the measuring rule - I must have missed it - then you turned around and said you did not care how they measure as long as it is consistent. I agree it should be consistent. But, if you don't care....I have to ask...did you vote to pass measureing at the whithers? Sence I did miss your post about this and I can't find it would you care to tell me why you did vote for it?

As far as the June Meeting - I did not expect you to answer that. I am sure it is a personal reason or you would be there. I was trying to point out - that is EXACTLY why some of us can not make it to the annual meeting. Sometimes, things just happen in life.

Neil..I forgot to ask another question. Someone posted on the forum( I am sorry ..I can't remember who) that this would stop people from implanting hair on the miniature horse ( I think this is cruel if it does happen). Since you are involved in some of the measuring can you tell me if this has happened? If it has..don't you think those are the people that should be punished? Not, the people that can't go to the meeting because for us it is much easier to measure from the last hair of the mane? I am EXTREMELY careful when clipping my minis because I want to know the TRUE measurement of my miniatures. I also want to tell the people that buy my miniatures the TRUE height of the horse. I am an HONEST breeder. I will also add I think if people start measuring from the whethers measurments will be all over the place. We will never agree on the true height of the measurement because I think two people will always measure the whethers differently. Sorry, I may have added this on a different post.

 

[nightflight]

Hi LisaF,

I was the one who posted about hair implanting. My first thought about changing where we measure was no, but really as long as everyone has to play by the same rules I don't care what spot we pick. I'm sure if any of the honest people on this forum had proof of anything abusive to a horse they would kick the abuser in the butt. That's my way of saying I have not seen it in the AMHA yet (not that I have been really looking), but I sure don't want to. Anyhow, that is part of how I reached my conclusion, how and why Neil reached his is likely different. There were other factors involved for me - hair rubbing out, how nervous novice people get during clipping, fluffing up hair etc. Measuring my horses I did come up with small changes in height from last mane hair vs. base of withers, but it wasn't much more than the difference between measuring from show to show, hoof trim to hoof trim, or bad hair day vs. good. It just really doesn't make a change for my horses, and it may help out a horse somewhere. Thats all. It takes me a few more minutes to measure so I can provide heights from different point, but I like spending time with my horses, and it is my choice to play if a few different ponds, so it's not a big deal. Anyhow, this isn't the final word but it's what I think and part of why I think it. If you want to PM me your address I can send you an article from Equus about some of the funny business that goes on with the larger hunter ponies and a study on how effective measuring sticks really are. We are not the only ones that want the largest smallest horses!

 

[McBunz]

Well there you go......"We are not the only ones that want the largest smallest horses!"

The rule book calls for the smallest most perfect horse.. Why the heck can people not see this.

If you want to show larger horses.. show them in AMHR. This is what is bugging so many of us..

People are not following the rules... This was the principal behind AMHA when set up. Horses 34" and under

were allowed, measured at the last hair of the mane. And all other things considered, the smallest most perfect horse would win in its class.. Changing the rules in the middle of the game just doesn't work for some of us...

 

[horses mouth]

Well there you go......"We are not the only ones that want the largest smallest horses!"

The rule book calls for the smallest most perfect horse.. Why the heck can people not see this.

If you want to show larger horses.. show them in AMHR. This is what is bugging so many of us..

People are not following the rules... This was the principal behind AMHA when set up. Horses 34" and under

were allowed, measured at the last hair of the mane. And all other things considered, the smallest most perfect horse would win in its class.. Changing the rules in the middle of the game just doesn't work for some of us...

McBunz

I'm not yrying to speak for Colleen, but it should be obvious here that there are differing opinions at play. You, she, I and the others are all intitled to dispariging points of view. In a perfect world we would all agree, but that would be "no fun"!

Here's mine with some history: I have been told that when the two clubs joined to form the association known as AMHA there were two different opinions on height. One group wanted smaller, one larger horses. This is why the "compeomised" measuring rule is so subjective. Also please don't forget that our needs and the horses have evolved. Proof of this is that the performance classes now carry a lot more than half of the weight in our association. Some people feel that we should have better moving horses and more leg sure helps.......legally anything we do to the measuring rule cannot eliminate horses that have "permanent" papers. As Colleen says, all play by the same rules. Therefore we are all afforded the same chance to cheat! Is this equitable? Well it was until certain parties decided it was a good chance to eliminate the competition. Were the protested horses too tall? Hard to tell since the rule is so subjective. Was the protest committee correct? Well our rule book spells out that "show officials" are to comprise the protest committee. It also spells out that show officials are the hired management and their staff. Most of the protest committee were neither. And as a member of last years Show Rules committee I was never consulted.

I am of the belief that the problem does not start with the measuring rule, but with the breeder who shoots, so to speak, for a November birth date and then lies that the foal was "found in the pasture" in January. Want to know how old that colt is when it shows as a yearling at the World show? Try 23 months! the honest person showing a yearling there might be showing a colt say, 17 months old! Now how far of a stretch would it be to want to not have to compete in the height division where the 23 month old yearling is showing? Gee we know that our "subjective" measuring rule makes it easy.......

The real question is; Is the new rule worded so that it is less subjective? I don't believe it is. This makes me wonder why we spent so much time, money and effort on it. Maybe it is just a smokesceen. If we don't focus on positive things all we accomplish is the demise of this association through attrition of the oh so important member.

We can all find reasons for dissention. Is this a fair or equitable reason to not show? That is an individual decision. Why don't we start a movement to say NO to these arguments? Then possibly we could focus our energy on creating new reasons to show. This sounds so much more inviting and prosperous.............

my.02 worth

Gary Barnes

 

[nightflight]

Really, please do stop pointing the stick at me. That stick man might fall and poke his eye out!!

Because I lot of folks don't know AMHA rules I want to point out that you have to put a $100 deposit down to present a challenge, and if you are correct you get your money back. If you are wrong the association gets the $100 because you wasted everyone's time. It is to help prevent abuse of the system.

I was at the last World Show and there were horses that weren't shown because the rules were enforced. In fact the protest rule was changed to give you (and me) a better chance at protesting. It used to be that you had to protest before a horse was in a class (how????), now, you can protest a horse after you see it in a class. That puts protesting more in reach of everyone, instead of just those who know the horses before hand.

May help a horse out somewhere refers to some of the not nice things people have done to horses to get them to measure a little shorter. Sorry that wasn't clear. Prehaps the phrase about the smallest and largest horses wasn't the best, but I was trying to point out that other breeds, clubs and associations besides the AMHA also have height issues to deal with. As I said the measurement place doesn't bother me either way, so I'm probably not much fun to argue with there.

Edit Add: The system isn't perfect but there are lots of people are working hard at it and having fun. Trying to talk via forum to people on other sides of the issue is very difficult. Please know that in my head my tone isn't trying to offend anyone. Hope it comes across that way.

Edit Add 2: I'm off for the weekend. Hope you all have a great one!

 

[horses mouth]

But no, cheaters are NOT stopped, and AMHA wouldn't want to lose any potential revenue from the "taller" horses, and those farms and trainers that may be cheating. So instead, we strike out at the people who are working within the rules and make them pay more to get cheating stopped!

Diane

I believe that you have offended me (above in bold)! Do you really think it is just the farms and trainers? Surely the owner, lil beginnings member, extremely competitive participant, or many others might "cheat" also...............what about the measurer? Or the Protest committee? What about the person that knows your horse is "daed on" the line and hopes that by protesting you he will get you knocked out of the class and maybe cost you the win?

I still like you though. lol!

Gary Barnes

 

[McBunz]

If this is in fact what the AMHA memberships want... then go for a B division.. just like the AMHR. Then show

the horses in the right height limit classes.. But don't try to pull the wool over the eyes of the membership.. Then

if someone is caught cheating, kick them to &%^$ out of the AMHA..

If this happens I am sure the AMHA will loose more members than it gains simply because the only advantage

to belonging to the AMHA then would be double reg. horses and more show for the few members who do show.

The members who do show are draining the pot... so as to speak.. while the rest of the membership just pays.

 

[LisaF.]

McBunz and Castle Rock I couldn't agree more.

We should be ENFORCING rules NOT changing rules.

I also thought AMHA was founded on " The smallest most perfect horse"

I also agree if you want a taller horse that is what imo is AMHR is for

I also took the hair implanting to mean that someone had tried this..or heard it had been tried.

In case people don't know I am a member of AMHA & AMHR and I love all my horses.

 

[Michelle@wescofarms]

Wow long and interesting thread!

I do find it interesting that people get so offended reading statements here that they ASSUME are slurs/slaps in the face which would not occur if the two parties were face to face. That is the problem of the written word, you can't see the person's expression, hear their tone, etc.

I would love to see Internet or mail voting but as many have pointed out to get this passed at the meeting ALL (or as many as possible) objections need to be addressed. I think what Jody meant about the convention attendees not having a vested interest - they're their they're voting! Not that they're against a mail/internet vote but what is presented needs to be really well thought out and well done to get approved.

As, someone pointed out part of the problem is understanding the 'issues' the membership needs to vote on. Not all of them are black and white. Changing a sentence of one rule can impact on 3-4 others - all of this has to be addressed. So, yes, I do feel that during the committee meetings and during the general membership vote people often point out thing you might not consider - especially if its a point opposite to your own!

Can this be resolved with a forum - probably so. Will the majority of members read it - highly unlikely.

Do I like the fact that 100 people are making the decisions for the 12K members - NO! But it is MY CHOICE - yes MY CHOICE to attend these meetings or not! Raising Minis is my business and I do view advertising, marketing, attending meetings, etc., as a necessary part of my business. Do I attend the meeting every year no - I don't for various reasons. But it is a priorty issue for me as it can be foaling season, personal or economic - I sitll consider my going or not a CHOICE situation.

I will say though attend one meeting - either club - it's an eye-opener as to what goes on. As this is about AMHA I'll stick to that, but please don't pretend AMHR is any better run or you have a say there as you don't!

Anyway, the convention is moved around the country so that people can have the opportunity to attend in a without it being a financial hardship. I go when it is held on the West Coast as there is less travel time involved (i.e. me gone). I'm hoping to eventually have a schedule that will allow me to attend both AMHA and AMHR meetings every year - again though its a CHOICE. I do feel they are that important. I know it is a hardship for some and circumstances do not allow people to attend, but - sorry to sound mean - if it's important enough you can find a way! I say this knowing full well I won't attend every year as it's just not something I can commit to at this time.

As for the convention itself, I think AMHA should invest more money and make the conventions more of a destination - a must attend event. I think more might go then as not everyone stays home purely for economic/personal reasons - often it's more of a why bother - there isn't a draw to go! Make it more family friendly so people could write off part of it as a business expense and combine it with a family vacation. Industry related conventions are wonderful (any industry) but do require an expenditure to make them happen and are generally part of the bylaws so are required! They aren't going away!

As for the people that VOLUNTEER to run AMHA - I'm glad they do it, as Neil pointed out and I agree with wholeheartedly - the majority of US - DO NOT CARE ENOUGH TO GET INVOLVED! I lump myself in that category, as carving out time to serve on committees, travel, etc., is a hardship - there isn't anything glorious about it - it is a time commitment! These people work hard to keep things running, and I don't agree with alot that they do, but they're doing it - that's the difference.

If you want to disagree - how involved are you (any one) at the local level? I know the local AMHR Club I'm involved with - really about 4-5 people do everything! Then there is the group I class myself in that contributes randomly to help out. The dedicated group travel 3-4 hours to attend our Club meeting - only a handful at best of those that are within an hour radius attend. I've seen that in both the AMHA and AMHR Clubs on the local level and the national assocations too. The same people that view it as important attend the meetings, man the committees, etc., run the show, edit the newsletter, at the local and national level.

AMHA will continue to grow and evolve - but it will be with the consistent care of INVOLVED membership. Honestly most of the people reading the Forum do care - what is discussed here - breeding issues, foaling, showing, dwarfism proves it on a daily basis! It would be great to harness the combined energy of the Forum members!!

 

[McBunz]

I wish to thank Jody and Gary for any support they can muster.. and I am sure the rest of the membership

will feel the same way.. Most of us are not trying to be unreasonable.. We only want the existing rules

followed, the standard left in one piece and the right to vote on matters important to us..

If the majority of the membership want larger horse allowed into

the AMHA . by all means do this.. but let them show against each other.. Not against the 34 and under horses

that the AMHA stands for. Write all the rules you want for this group.. Call them anything you want..

Make buckets of money for the club..

 

[McBunz]

Bump

 

[Mona]

I would love to see Internet or mail voting but as many have pointed out to get this passed at the meeting ALL (or as many as possible) objections need to be addressed. I think what Jody meant about the convention attendees not having a vested interest - they're their they're voting! Not that they're against a mail/internet vote but what is presented needs to be really well thought out and well done to get approved.

Michelle, this is the type of thing (I have bolded and made red the more precise statement I refer to here in my reply) I really, REALLY have a problem with. We have been told time and time and time again that these things must all be worked out...yada, yada, yada, and that is all fine, BUT, then WHY were the issues and objections to changing the way we measure a miniature horse not also first thought out and these same steps followed before they voted that rule in? It's when things like that occur, that really set me off, wondering why some things for some people get passed through so quickly without following proper proceedure, yet for others, they hit that proverbial brick wall, and are faced with, "sorry...you didn't do this, you dnd't answer that, you never planned for this, you didn;t do that...etc., etc.".

 

[R3]

I think what they are referring to is having to work out the issues, if you want to get a proposal passed:

...if you are not there to speak to it

...if the 'value' of it might be unnoticed

...if the content is controversial

...if it doesn't immediately benefit the members voting on it

...if (and I hate to add this, but it is true, in ALL organizagtions) you are not a 'known' person

Even proposals that you think have been completely worked out, may turn out to be unpassable, because someone else 'reads' it differently, gives it a different interpretation (even on the 'floor', as it being presented for a vote), and then people say, "Hmmm, I guess it could say that..." and it is voted down.

Remember, once the proposal has been printed in the World magazine for the final official 'notice' period, no changes can be made, except to make a correction. So, wording is critical.

Why did the Measuring (BOTW) rule get passed? I think it was due to several factors. One of which was the frustration that had been generated by the 'measuring' at the World show. Many people, both the ones who had 'tall' horses, and even more so, with the ones who didn't have 'tall' horses. They were upset with things that went on, and there was a general feeling, especially with the people that don't 'push' on the height issues. They wanted 'something' done. That, I think played into it. The other, and it hurts me to say it, but I think the proposal to measure at the Top of the Withers (TOTW) also played a part.

They two places to measure (BOTW & TOTW) were presented right next to each other, with the TOTW first. Since they were both on the agenda, people that were against the TOTW started comparing the two methods, and there was as much discussion of the BOTW going on as there was TOTW. People were saying how BOTW would help with the measuring, since it would be 'bone', etc. So, when the TOTW was voted down, there was little discussion of the BOTW, as people has already said how much 'better' that was than TOTW. I tried to point out a few things, but I was already somewhat in a 'stunned' state that there were people even willing to consider BOTW, and I hadn't given it any real thought before that moment. Then the vote for BOTW passed.

Also, I just want to explain that a person can not just stand up, even if it 'their' proposal, and answer all the questions about it from the people on the floor at the meeting. You are limited in the number of times you can speak. People have to line up at the microphone, say their 'piece' and then sit back down, or go back to stand in line again. So, there was basically only me speaking for the TOTW, and lots of people lining up to speak against it, and for the BOTW (even though the BOTW was not reallly the topic of discussion at the time, which is what we see here on the Forum all the time, people get off-topic). But, I couldn't respond to all the BOTW issues (during what should have been the TOTW discussion) as I had to stand in line to speak too, and they only let you speak a set number of times.

After the meeting was over for the day, I talked to several people (that I KNOW have no interest in taller horses being in AMHA), and asked them how they voted and vote. (These were 'little' people, the average Joe type, not 'big' names.) They had voted for the BOTW, they said because they thought it might help make measuring more fair. And, I also heard THAT THEY PREFERRED THAT TO THE TOTW (The 'caps' are my emphasis, they said it is a matter of the conversation). I was stunned again! Apparently, it seemed to at least some of the people voting, thought they were making A choice between TOTW and BOTW, and they preferred the BOTW... It never really sank in that they were actually making two votes, TOTW vs LHOTM, and a separate vote BOTW vs LHOTM.

There was also discussion during the meeting in some committees and in conversations between people over the fact that horse's papers were not being 'pulled' when a horse measured 'over' at a Local, Regional or National show. The reason for that (and this has been said by the Board for at least two years) is that it is because we can't make it stand up in court if it's challenged. Apparently, legal opinion is that a precedent has been set of NOT pulling papers, so if we try to do it now, we couldn't win a court case. The only way to change that is to 'start fresh', and the only way to start fresh is to 'change' the way we do things, such as change where we measure. So, that 'thread' was also circulationg at the time, and may be why I got the response that I did from the people I talked to.

All of these things together is why I think that it was able to pass. It was because of EVERYTHING, going on, the dissatisfaction with the way measuring process at shows, papers on oversize horses not being pulled, and having the TOTW and BOTW being presented 'together'. It is kind of like when you watch one of those documentaries on TV that disects an airplane wreck, it was a lot of 'little' things that lined up just right, and when they did, a disaster happened.

 

[McBunz]

Now that is sad and scarey... If the people voting for the BOTW didn't even know that the LHOM could have

been retained. So much for attending the meeting so you know what is going on. Why was the TOTW even

talked about if it was not on the agenda..? And why were things not made clear before the vote was taken?

 

[R3]

I didn't say ALL the people responded that way, with any kind of confusion about what exactly was going on, but I felt that it may have happened with at least one couple that I spoke with.

The TOTW was on the agenda. There were two different proposals for changing he location for measuring that were to be presented at the meeting. One was the TOTW, the next the BOTW, they just happened to be put right next to each other in the agenda order, and that is why the discussion from one had the cross-over from the next one.

I don't think that any 'confusion' was THE reason for the BOTW passing. As I was trying to explain, it was a combination of all the things going on, none of them by themselves would have been enough, but all combined got the result that it did.

I think that part of the result was because people wanted 'change', and of the two options for 'change' that were presented, the BOTW had more support.

Being there in person is better than just reading about something. Watching and listening on a webcast is better than just reading. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and I think its fair to say that 'hearing' is worth a thousand words to, if you compare it to the written word. It makes a huge difference if you can 'hear' the words vs. just reading them. There is definitely a benefit to going to the meeting.

 

[McBunz]

Maybe so but my situation will not allow it.. and from what you have posted anything I would have to

say would not be listened to anyhow.. I admit I am a nobody.. just like 85 percent or more of the members..

 

[R3]

McBunz, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't understand. What did I say that would make you feel that way (that no one would listen to you)?

 

[McBunz]

I would say this...."..if (and I hate to add this, but it is true, in ALL organizagtions) you are not a 'known' person "