I know there has been some discussion of this topic. I did some checking and found that the rule for registration is that all 3-4-5 year olds must be registered this year. They are being "nice" by not charging us late fees for ones past their birthdate this year. ( Thanks a lot). I don't know about all of you but this becomes a major hardship. When you budget for a specific number of registrations a year - we usually do 6-10, then three times that fee really throws off everything. In this hard time when it is getting harder and harder to just cover feed costs this is really too much. Do we just not register and dump horses at give away auctions- unregistered? Do we give up showing this year? Where are you going to make this money come from? I am writing to my director and I would ask for all of you to also write to your director and voice concern for this problem. I am hoping if enough of us write the directors can take it back, or at least change it in some way to ease the blow. Even if you only have one or two to register please write and help us that it will make a difference.
AMHA permanent registration
- Thread starter ionafarm
- Start date
Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:
JMS Miniatures
Well-Known Member
I see and understand your problem. I am fortuante to have just one that will need to be pernament and he was going to be this year anyways but instead of waiting til Sept. I can do it now. But to the other breeders out there that have so many horses as it is, why bring on more hardship. I was thinking maybe this rule is a good thing, but perhaps it isn't.
I am wondering how much research has been done? I feel like this is like last year measuring at the base of the withers.
I am wondering how much research has been done? I feel like this is like last year measuring at the base of the withers.
Carolyn R
Well-Known Member
I am lost, did they change the date when they go perm. form 5 to 3 years?
Sorry, I am not sure what you mean.
Sorry, I am not sure what you mean.
Reignmaker Miniatures
Well-Known Member
Like Carolyn R, I am confused. Is this the A or R registry? Please give us a few more details, I have nothing in that age grouping but would sure like to know what is up.
JMS Miniatures
Well-Known Member
This is for AMHA only. It was decided at Convention by the people that where there and was voted on to change the ages from temporary to pernament. It was originally at 5 years of age. Now it is changed to 3 years of age to go pernament. Just like what AMHR does. However I am still not 100% sure when this goes into affect and I'm sure AMHA will give you plenty of time to update your paperwork, its just alot more money into their pockets.
Carolyn R
Well-Known Member
Thank You for clearing that up!
C
C.A.R.E.
Guest
This was just posted in the other "active" AMHA thread, but it warrants repeating here.
There have been many good comments and questions posted here, unfortunately, no one seems to have all the answers, not even the BOD and EC of AMHA!
How long are the members expected to just sit by and watch while the Board ignores, violates, abuses or manipulates the rules any way they want to?
The bylaw that passed, that changes the hardship and permanent registration of horses from five years to three, was first approved to go to the Annual Meeting at the June/'08 board meeting, AND before it was even written! (see June '08 minutes as published on the amha.org site)
There were questions as to it being correct on the first day of the Feb.'09 Annual Meeting, so was held off, and was brought back to the meeting on Saturday. It was never mentioned if it got the two-thirds vote required to pass a bylaw, or if it was a majority vote. Can't be sure that it even passed legally. It was stated that 100 members were registered for the meeting on Friday, but only 79 were present and voting on Saturday just before the election of officers. Sad isn't it, that 40 members, a majority of those in attendance, could elect officers for 12,000 members??!!
If accepted as passed, it has no mention of any implementation in the bylaw. Article XIV (A) and ( C ) state that amendments passed at the Annual Meeting will go into effect on January 1, of the proceeding year. (which would be January 1, 2010.)
Article XIX of AMHA bylaws states that Robert's Rules of Order will govern the Association in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation, these Bylaws, and any special rules of order the Association may adopt.
The vice-president made a motion to pass a standing rule to start implementation of the bylaw in March 2009. Roberts Rules of Order states that no motion is in order if it is in conflict with the bylaws. If it is in conflict, the standing rule is Null and Void even if the vote is unanimous.
The whole purpose of waiting until January 1, of the proceeding year to put new rules and bylaws into effect, was to have 10 months to determine all issues involving implementation of the rules.
There was no emergency in passing a standing rule. Just because it was said that it would bring $50,000 into the association is not necessarily true. No one knows that. Sure, it may bring in the income, but in return, what will it cost AMHA to implement it? We can already see the confusion of people on this forum, wondering if they have to register their 3, 4, and 5 year old horses this year, and if so, the great expense they will have in doing so. What is the time frame to register? Will any late fees be waived? Have the directors determined how much it will cost to change the computer program to accept 3 year old hardship and permanently registered horses? Have they determined what it will cost to print new registration certificates, transfer forms and all other material that might be involved.
This is no way to handle an issue as serious as this change. Apparently the directors don't know the answer yet. They will have a teleconference call before they can answer questions, at yet more expense to the association. How about following the flow chart and getting all implementation issues worked out before a rule change is made, and then it would save the unnecessary expense of having to call a special teleconference?
It is time the members tell the Board to stop making hasty decisions. Follow the rules as they are written. Many mistakes were made last year doing this same type of hasty rule violations. We hope that with the new EC members, things will not be repeated in 2009!
There have been many good comments and questions posted here, unfortunately, no one seems to have all the answers, not even the BOD and EC of AMHA!
How long are the members expected to just sit by and watch while the Board ignores, violates, abuses or manipulates the rules any way they want to?
The bylaw that passed, that changes the hardship and permanent registration of horses from five years to three, was first approved to go to the Annual Meeting at the June/'08 board meeting, AND before it was even written! (see June '08 minutes as published on the amha.org site)
There were questions as to it being correct on the first day of the Feb.'09 Annual Meeting, so was held off, and was brought back to the meeting on Saturday. It was never mentioned if it got the two-thirds vote required to pass a bylaw, or if it was a majority vote. Can't be sure that it even passed legally. It was stated that 100 members were registered for the meeting on Friday, but only 79 were present and voting on Saturday just before the election of officers. Sad isn't it, that 40 members, a majority of those in attendance, could elect officers for 12,000 members??!!
If accepted as passed, it has no mention of any implementation in the bylaw. Article XIV (A) and ( C ) state that amendments passed at the Annual Meeting will go into effect on January 1, of the proceeding year. (which would be January 1, 2010.)
Article XIX of AMHA bylaws states that Robert's Rules of Order will govern the Association in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation, these Bylaws, and any special rules of order the Association may adopt.
The vice-president made a motion to pass a standing rule to start implementation of the bylaw in March 2009. Roberts Rules of Order states that no motion is in order if it is in conflict with the bylaws. If it is in conflict, the standing rule is Null and Void even if the vote is unanimous.
The whole purpose of waiting until January 1, of the proceeding year to put new rules and bylaws into effect, was to have 10 months to determine all issues involving implementation of the rules.
There was no emergency in passing a standing rule. Just because it was said that it would bring $50,000 into the association is not necessarily true. No one knows that. Sure, it may bring in the income, but in return, what will it cost AMHA to implement it? We can already see the confusion of people on this forum, wondering if they have to register their 3, 4, and 5 year old horses this year, and if so, the great expense they will have in doing so. What is the time frame to register? Will any late fees be waived? Have the directors determined how much it will cost to change the computer program to accept 3 year old hardship and permanently registered horses? Have they determined what it will cost to print new registration certificates, transfer forms and all other material that might be involved.
This is no way to handle an issue as serious as this change. Apparently the directors don't know the answer yet. They will have a teleconference call before they can answer questions, at yet more expense to the association. How about following the flow chart and getting all implementation issues worked out before a rule change is made, and then it would save the unnecessary expense of having to call a special teleconference?
It is time the members tell the Board to stop making hasty decisions. Follow the rules as they are written. Many mistakes were made last year doing this same type of hasty rule violations. We hope that with the new EC members, things will not be repeated in 2009!
Last edited:
This is the chance for the membership to help the new President of AMHA get started on the right track by letting him and the new BOD and EC committee members know the error of passing this standing rule. We are fortunate that this rule cannot stand and is null and void by being in conflict with the newly passed bylaw. It should take affect January 2010.
I can only imagine the panic that the registrar and other office staff must be feeling right now, thinking that this will take affect March of 2009 and how totally unprepared they must be for it.
This is just another example of people trying to get things pushed through without any research on the effects an amendment like this will have on the membership, the office staff and the cost of implementation.
Why didn't the parliamentarian catch this?
I just hope the powers that be at AMHA get this straightened out.
I can only imagine the panic that the registrar and other office staff must be feeling right now, thinking that this will take affect March of 2009 and how totally unprepared they must be for it.
This is just another example of people trying to get things pushed through without any research on the effects an amendment like this will have on the membership, the office staff and the cost of implementation.
Why didn't the parliamentarian catch this?
I just hope the powers that be at AMHA get this straightened out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok -- aside from the fact that it APPEARS they played fast and footloose with the rules.....
This is a desperate attempt to get a quick infusion of cash into the AMHA coffers....what they THINK will be a life-saving blood transfusion.
But what about 2010, 2011, and 2012 when all those horses that WOULD have been brought permanent in those years .... will not because they already took the owner's money?? What little scheme will they come up with in THOSE years to keep from getting sucked into another financial abyss????
A short-term fix for a long term problem, pure and simple.
This is a desperate attempt to get a quick infusion of cash into the AMHA coffers....what they THINK will be a life-saving blood transfusion.
But what about 2010, 2011, and 2012 when all those horses that WOULD have been brought permanent in those years .... will not because they already took the owner's money?? What little scheme will they come up with in THOSE years to keep from getting sucked into another financial abyss????
A short-term fix for a long term problem, pure and simple.
Riverdance
Well-Known Member
Based upon what I got out of the meeting is: They are changing it back to 3 years of age. One of the reasons is that they were losing many of the horses that were not permanently registered in at 5 years old. The thinking is, that at 3 years more people are willing to get them permanent ,especially since they are doing it at the same time as AMHR.
They did not do it to get fast up front money, but to get the revenue over the years that they are losing to those 5 year olds who are not brought permanent. Will it work, who knows, only time will tell.
But, they are giving everyone a couple of years with no late fees to get it done. For two reasons, one, it will take a couple of years for everyone to catch on, and two, they do not want to make it a hardship to do all 3, 4 and 5 year olds at once for the breeder.
Why some of you still want to always look for the worst scenario is beyond me.
It was all explained at the meeting. I did not go, but did watch it on line and had no problem following what they were saying and why.
They did not do it to get fast up front money, but to get the revenue over the years that they are losing to those 5 year olds who are not brought permanent. Will it work, who knows, only time will tell.
But, they are giving everyone a couple of years with no late fees to get it done. For two reasons, one, it will take a couple of years for everyone to catch on, and two, they do not want to make it a hardship to do all 3, 4 and 5 year olds at once for the breeder.
Why some of you still want to always look for the worst scenario is beyond me.
It was all explained at the meeting. I did not go, but did watch it on line and had no problem following what they were saying and why.
Joanne
Well-Known Member
I originally thought you meant AMHR too!
I mark on my height sheet in the barn those horses every year that are going permanent. We then measure them when we have them trimmed by the farrier. That way when we send the permanent papers in we have a few measurements taken in their fifth year. The final measurements that we take we make sure they are standing perfect so we are accurate.
Guess I will have to amend my 2009 list !
Does anyone know when this will be finalized?
I guess they are now saying that the horse has reached it's final size at three years.
I mark on my height sheet in the barn those horses every year that are going permanent. We then measure them when we have them trimmed by the farrier. That way when we send the permanent papers in we have a few measurements taken in their fifth year. The final measurements that we take we make sure they are standing perfect so we are accurate.
Guess I will have to amend my 2009 list !
Does anyone know when this will be finalized?
I guess they are now saying that the horse has reached it's final size at three years.
midnight star stables
Well-Known Member
I'm with Sue.
Also I want to bring to attention, since I'm sure many did not know this, but AMHA used to be 3 years, just like AMHR!! Sue pointed out up there ^.
Personally I'm glad AMHA changed their measuring style back too! Good for them! Now were less of a joke breed
I glad with AMHA and their changes...
C
C.A.R.E.
Guest
You are correct in part, they did do it for the reasons you stated above, that were mentioned at the meeting, and that part they DID DO ACCORDING to the rules, BUT, you are also incorrect in saying they did not do it to "get fast upfront money", because that is where it all went bad! Their wanting to do it to bring in a quick $50,000 to AMHA this year is what was not legal, because it was in conflict with the AMHA bylaws, and according to the Roberts Rules of Order which governs AMHA, all votes that are in conflict with the bylaws, become null and void. To make this legal once again, it needs to be stopped into coming into effect on March 1, 2009, and put back to the original and LEGAL implementation date of January 1, 2010.
For now, we need to have faith in our new President and EC that they will follow the rules and bylaws that govern our association, and use them to make things right.
Irish Hills Farm
Irish Hills Farm
I don't have a problem with AMHA changing the permanent status to 3 years of age. And I also don't have a problem with the new rule going into effect March 1st. I think AMHA is trying their best to make everyone happy.
I have a question in regards to C.A.R.E. - I must've missed this at some point....I "get" what you are representing. Who are the members of this group? Who is the one that posts here on the forum for this group?
I have a question in regards to C.A.R.E. - I must've missed this at some point....I "get" what you are representing. Who are the members of this group? Who is the one that posts here on the forum for this group?
I LIKE it going back to age 3, it makes it easier for me, I can perm w/BOTH associations at one time. I hope they give us the full three years to bring them all permanent, it would lighten the financial burden for alot of people. But Like Jean B Said, if they are hoping for a big infusion of cash over this, what do they plan to use in the subsequent years? From what I've seen, if they have the $$ in hand they spend it, and then find that they "simply can't do without" whatever they spent it on, which means more money needed....(sounds kinda like our government, huh??) So MY concern is that if it goes as they anticipate and they get a bunch of cash over the deal, that they deal with the use of that cash wisely, knowing that the gravey train has come to an end!
Riverdance
Well-Known Member
They are giving you 2 years to bring all of your 3, 4 and 5 year old to permanent. Not a quick amount of cash in one year. Again, they are doing it so that they do not lose as many permanent papers as they have been losing.
Now if this gives them a lot of cash up front, why should we complain? Are they not in it to make money? Plus, they are hoping that more people will now permanent their 3 year olds when they do it for AMHR. So that they do not lose that revenue. Sounds to me like they hope to get some revenue that they were not getting before over the years to come.
The only thing it is giving them is 2 more years that people can hardship theri horses in. That will be a lot more revenue. I for one am all for it.
There are perhaps many people who have joined CARE who believe in some of what they are saying, but it seems that only one person talks for everyone and not all members agree.
JMS Miniatures
Well-Known Member
Well what is the reasons for people not wanting to make their AMHA horse pernament? If it is because they forget then they obviously just don't care. You have to have people who care enough to get their horse's paperwork UTD and if they don't care to do that then they shouldn't belong in our breed.
I honestly don't see the point in their logic to make it "easier" for people to remeber to get their horses pernament, if you can't remeber then you have too many, honestly. IMO this is a scare tatic and people will be sending in their papers so fast you couldn't see straight.
I honestly don't see the point in their logic to make it "easier" for people to remeber to get their horses pernament, if you can't remeber then you have too many, honestly. IMO this is a scare tatic and people will be sending in their papers so fast you couldn't see straight.
Doobie
Well-Known Member
I also think that it makes sense to go back to the 3 yrs to permently register...
However I do have one pet peeve right now and that is that you now have to be a member of AMHA to have any paper work done on a horse!
I am not a member, I just dont have AMHA horse's... until now
Having to pay 100$ for a membership to transfer ownership of 1 horse who may or maynot go over at age 3 (or 5) is crazy!!!
Would it not make sense to take my 30$ (which is double the cost for a member) then to loose it?
And what about the lost of horses... I am sure I am not the only one with 1 or 2 AMHA horse's who would not pay a membership fee just to do the paperwork!!!
AMHR will be increasing there numbers, AMHA will be loosing number and $
*this is JMHO*
However I do have one pet peeve right now and that is that you now have to be a member of AMHA to have any paper work done on a horse!
I am not a member, I just dont have AMHA horse's... until now
Having to pay 100$ for a membership to transfer ownership of 1 horse who may or maynot go over at age 3 (or 5) is crazy!!!
Would it not make sense to take my 30$ (which is double the cost for a member) then to loose it?
And what about the lost of horses... I am sure I am not the only one with 1 or 2 AMHA horse's who would not pay a membership fee just to do the paperwork!!!
AMHR will be increasing there numbers, AMHA will be loosing number and $
*this is JMHO*
JMS Miniatures
Well-Known Member
Doobie,
Which is why I think IMO alot of horse's are getting lost. You have to become a member in both registeries to do any sort of paperwork. I am sorry but that is expensive! Yes you pay more to do paperwork if you aren't a member but those membership fees are outrageous IMO. I know many people disagree with me but whatever.
Which is why I think IMO alot of horse's are getting lost. You have to become a member in both registeries to do any sort of paperwork. I am sorry but that is expensive! Yes you pay more to do paperwork if you aren't a member but those membership fees are outrageous IMO. I know many people disagree with me but whatever.
Doobie
Well-Known Member
Yes that is exactly what I ment... The membership is just too high for one or two horses ...
I was willing to pay the extra to make sure to keep papers up to date and keep the horse in the AMHA registry!
If the registry has done this thinking they will get more people becoming members to cover their one or two I think they are sadly mistaken and in for a big surprise!
