AMHA permanent registration

[Reignmaker Miniatures]

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*

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.

I'm not sure but can the seller not do the transfer as part of the purchase and then it is done?

I too like the idea of all horses regardless of registry going permanent at 3yrs. I can see there may be some kinks to iron out yet but for the most part I think its a good idea.

 

[tagalong]

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.

Thanks you for being a voice of reason, Riverdance.... I agree with everything you said. And I confess I get very frustrated with the way some seem to want to add a touch of drama to everything - instead of quietly discussing their concerns.

I do not see it as a scare tactic or a quick cash cow - and to be honest I think that no matter what they did at the meeting some would only find fault with it anyway.

JMO - but I think the permanent registration should have been set at 5 for both registries (yes - I know that would never happen!)... by 5 years of age horses have definitely stopped growing while at 3 they could easily add more height and make that "permanent" measurement completely invalid.

 

[C.A.R.E.]

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?

Irish Hills Farm, C.A.R.E. (Concerned Advocates for Rule Enforcement) is just a few people working together, to help ensure rules are being followed. Our small group was formed after the February 2008 Annual Meeting, after we learned of the changes made in the way measuring would take place. (ie. last hairs of the mane to base of withers). We were just some "regular" people that were very upset about it, and decided it was time to get together to try to stop it from actually coming into effect in January 2009, as it was passed at that meeting. We were successful with that.

Anyway, through our intense research of the minutes, rules and bylaws, we have discovered that in many instances throughout recent years, that the rules and bylaws that govern ALL of us in the AMHA, have time and time again, been broken. Some of the BOD and EC in past years, have seemed to feel that they didn't have to follow the same Rules and Bylaws that the rest of us regular members do, and we are here as a presence to help ensure that changes! We are putting our faith with the new AMHA President and EC and hope they will find the honesty and integrity within themselves, and on behalf of all AMHA members, to ensure that when implementing new rules, bylaws and/or changes, and when conducting all AMHA business that they do so by following the rules and bylaws of our Association. Some call us vigilantes, some call us a watchdog group, some say we are troublemakers because we are digging up skeletons, but we are a group strongly comitted to our work in trying to better AMHA and bring it back to a member friendly organization. Proof of everything we find and post about (we post on L'il Beginnings as we feel it reaches the most Miniature Horse enthusiasts in one place) is factual information as published in AMHA minutes, AMHA records, AMHA Rules, Bylaws and Regulations, and through correspondence with the BOD and/or EC. We do not make these things up as we go along, and even Mike Want, Past President of the AMHA admitted to us, and allowed us to publicly post his letter confirming so, that rules were in fact being broken by those in power in the AMHA!

The members of CARE is no big secret. We are those people that sign all letters written by CARE, plus advisors and legal assistance. If you go back through our earlier postings, you will find the list of names.

Riverdance, in regards to your statement, "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." I don't know where you get your information about C.A.R.E., but you might want to check facts before you make such a post, because your source of information is not a good one. C.A.R.E has very few members and have not taken in a single "new" member since we formed in March, 2008.

All members are in unanimous agreement on every issue before we make a statement or write a letter. I (Mona) am the spokesperson for the group, and when posting on behalf of CARE, post under the CARE login name so as not to mix my personal viewpoints with those posted on behalf of CARE. We do not make statements we cannot back up with AMHA rules or minutes from meetings. We deal only in facts.

 

[Songcatcher]

- and to be honest I think that no matter what they did at the meeting some would only find fault with it anyway.

EXACTLY! Some people are so paranoid that they seem to think that everything the registry does is out to get them.

 

[Tango]

Paranoia has nothing to do with it and people don't believe that the registry is "out to get them".

AMHA has a very large BOD that is governed by a rule book that can be misinterpreted and hard to follow. No one is at fault. Personally it matters not to me whether perm is at 3 years or 5 years.

The bottom line is (and according to the AMHA rule book) the "standing rule" that was passed at the Annual Meeting to start the 3 year perm registration in March of 2009 instead of January 2010 was in direct conflict of the bylaw and is null and void. Plain and simple. Even provisions that are outlined in the rule book that would allow the BOD to go ahead and implement as deemed fit for whatever reason cannot apply as this rule is a direct conflict of the bylaw.

It's all in the rule book.

 

[Katiean]

I just talked to AMHA and they do not have a date that they will begin to have 3 yr olds come perm. I called them because one of my mares comes perm. next year and all I have budgeted is the one mare and her colt. I really didn't want to miss the May show with this mare because I could not bring her perm until after the show.

 

[ontherisefarm]

HI everyone ! I can understand how it would upset some if they had alot of horses to bring permanent as a cost issue. I don't have alot so it doesnt bother me as much as someone else that does. I am kinda glad as it lets me get it over with at the same time so I only need to take pictures that one year instead of taking pictures 2 different years for the same horse. Also I think maybe since they want to implement it this year which some of you have stated is against the rules,maybe that is why they are giving this year and next to have it done without penalties so it takes the rule into consideration. JMO I really dont wanna get into the height and money issue about this rule just wanted to bring in another side.

Thanks

 

[funnybunny]

Weren't they supposed to have a Parliamentarian professional at the meeting?

Wasn't that to insure the rules/constitution/by laws were followed to the "T"?

What happened with that?

 

[Versatility Farm & Training]

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.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread LOOKING for the worst scenario, or being paranoid that AMHA is out to get them, as someone else said. I have heard people voicing their concerns about how this rule change is or would effect them and problems it could/would pose. Not everyone was at the meeting or able to watch it online. I for one watched online, but not the entire thing and missed the portion where this rule was discussed and passed.

After hearing about it and contacting my local director for an explanation, I was under the impression that all the 3,4, and5 year olds had to be done this year, which is something I can not afford to do and register my foals. I heard AMHA stated one reason for this rule is that 5 year olds were not being brought permanent. I wonder if they considered that many of those horses not brought permanent were because by the age of 5 the horse had gone over... why take a horse permanent if it measures 35"? INstead many breeders don't take them permanent, and never think to send the papers to the AMHA office. Or there are the pet quality horses sold without papers. IF they are pet quality then IMO they don't need papers to be a pet. Also, if you have to be an AMHA member in order to do paperwork..... you are going to loose a lot of horses! Someone buying thier first mini will not want to pay the membership fee just to be able to transfer their horse into their name. But if they don't have ot be members... maybe in a year or 2 they will see how fun the minis are and want more or want to show. Someone who hasn't even transfered the horse into their name will probably never progress into a breeder or shower. I have a client who is fairly new in the minis. She started in AMHR and has been thinking about doing AMHA as she now owns a few that are double, but she hasn't made up her mind yet and also is unsure if she has the financing to do both. If she see's the cost of having to join AMHA just to transfer her 2 AMHA horses.... she'll proabbly only transfer the AMHR papers, and may never decide to do anything with AMHA, including taking those horses she already owns permanent.

I personally believe that MANY minis do not finish growing by 3 years of age, and because we have evidence of that, the age should have been left at 5, (I wish AMHR would change to 5, but I don't see that happening). That was the reason it changed from 3 to 5 in the first place. If you look at my horses registration papers, many of them are taller on their AMHA papers than AMHR, because they weren't done growing at 3.

The latest news I have heard on this rule change is that nothing has been fingured out, or set in stone. The BOD is supposed to be having a teleconference on this issue and deciding the details of everything, when and if it will take effect, costs, etc.

 

[Boinky]

Ok people..you really can't have it both ways.. seems when the measurement rule was voted on a whole lot of people were very much against it and didn't know where to turn to try to get it changed. C.A.R.E group stepped up and fought to get it changed. Now when there is another rule that was enacted against the rules, if it's what everyone else seems to want, it's OK to break the rules?? sorry but it just doesn't work that way. I have no affiliation with C.A.R.E but i can see the irony of that. It's ok to break the rules if it's what YOU want.

I personally don't see a problem with changing the permanent to 3 IF it was enacted legally by the RULES which are there for a reason..if you let this broken rule slide...one you don't like could also slide!

Anyhow I have one horse that is overdue for bringing permanent with AMHA.. i can tell you MY personal reason. A.) I didn't want to have to pay high membership fee for one horse. B.) Cost of bringing a stallion permanent is pretty outrageous in my opinion C.) you have to get it in within so many months (think it was 6?) of the horses date of birth. Sorry but half the time i don't even remember MY birthday... if it was within the same calendar year as that horse turned 5 It probably wouldn't have been as easy to forget to me. D.) i don't really show AMHA very much so what is the incentive for me to do it?

Now for the question of reason.... By doing this to draw in the lost permanent horses or trying to get more to go permanent... did they also reduce the fee?? I don't see how it's likely to truly drawn in anymore "lost" or potential lost horses if their fee is still high... to ME and i know many others that is a big turn off and could draw the line between lost income!!

 

[Mona]

Weren't they supposed to have a Parliamentarian professional at the meeting?

Yes, they did have one present.

Wasn't that to insure the rules/constitution/by laws were followed to the "T"?

Yes, that was the intent.

What happened with that?

That is something I had wondered about as well.

 

[Marsha Cassada]

This topic has motivated me to send in my money for AMHA and AMHR. Since I have my horses for fun and pleasure, not profit or competition, I never bothered to join. But, I feel it is time to "pay my dues" and support the organizations.

 

[Sandee]

I'm going to open my mouth and probably stick my foot in it. If their thought was to bring in money for AMHA by bringing the registrations down to age 3 then IMO they are only paddling with one oar.

I was going to drop my membership for 1 yr and then pay the "not a member" price next year to bring my filly permanent. The way it stands now I'll join again for this year and pay the (what) $20 fee for permanent papers.

If the organization would work to bring shows to the areas of the country that have NONE, then I would be interested in maintaining my membership. Since there are literally NO shows in Wisconsin and few within even 5-6 hours driving distance, the AMHA papers really don't make a difference up here but I keep them up "just in case" someone ends up with my horses where it does matter. However, keeping up the membership makes very little sense. Yes, I've made several at the "office" aware of this "dead zone" to no avail.

 

[Bess Kelly]

I have not issue with changing "perm" back to 3 yrs, vice 5. Hardshipping at 3 vice 5 is where they will now see an amount of cash for those who can now get an animal in that they would not have been able to with the 5 y/o in 2013 set up when closing hardships. Again, I'm OK with this!!! Let's face it, there will only be a certain number hardshipped and certainly not enough, even with changing the age, to make a great deal of difference in the gene pool, money, or any other issues, than before this rule.

The reasons for not having gone perm at 5 are MANY, MANY, MANY!!!

It is NOT because we do not care, as one suggests, sometimes the funding is not available, there are personal and/or family issues......health is a big one.......that take priority to the importance of time. Can't fathom that???????????? Well, sit by the bedside of a loved one and watch them dying -- you will soon appreciate that your mind does NOT care what day, time or birthday it is -- for you or your horses. Depression follows and there you go. 1-4 yrs shot out of your life. Things happen.

IMO, if they want to raise some cash and "find" some horses........late fee amnesty to bring current those over 5 yr olds. A special rate (again!!) for non-members to handle registration paperwork. A means to have NON-ATTENDING MEMBERS, able to vote on these laws. CHARGE A FEE...for the NON-ATTENDEES to vote, I'd pay it! Gotta be less expensive than all the associated time/costs of a trip that you just cannot make, and it would help cover a multitude of costs for them. I would not be opposed to paying up to $100 to "attend/vote via technology" for the annual meeting. But, do feel the right to watch should be free as this yr. Require me to pay and register 60 days ahead, yes, that's OK.

 

[kaykay]

Over the last few years I have presented the amnesty idea over and over and always have been shot down by AMHA. If they wanted a quick infusion of cash and bring old members back that would have done it. Heck the IRS does it so I figured AMHA could do it too LOL. Many people simply do not have the money to pay the late fee to bring a horse perm if you forgot to do it on time. Making a 1 year amnesty period imo would have brought in a lot of money and brought some old members back.

 

[ontherisefarm]

OK I said I wasn't gonna get into this but I went to AMHA's site to check on fees for putting horses permanent.I think I about fell off my chair !!!!! I havent had to bring an AMHA horse permanent for a long while so I guess I never really paid too much attention to the price. WOW.....and HOLY COW !!!!!!

That is alot of money to pay for a horse you have already registered. I think I understand why some people don't bring thier horses permanent. ok, I am not trying to put the registries against one another but I just dont understand how AMHR charges only $5 to do this and AMHA all the way up to $60. OUCH !!!!

I still like them bringing the age down to 3 but geez it is no wonder people dont follow through..... Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[ClickMini]

I would just like to address Bess Kelly's comment that hardshipping horses coming in to the registry are a nominal income at best. As a matter of fact, when it was voted in to close hardshipping last year, the treasurer revealed that hardship fees had brought approximately $70,000 to the registry the year before. In my opinion, that is far from insignificant. That means that if two more years worth of horses could be hardshipped in under this new rule, the registry could project an additional $140,000 revenue in the next four years. Again, not insignificant.

I am concerned that the proper procedures be followed in implementing any rules. My main concern of ALL is that there seems to be no way to get voting for the people who can't attend the meeting in person. It is frustrating. So many avenues of obtaining revenue for the registry are passed over without regard to long-term health of the organization. This rule seems to be trying to band-aid a couple of these things that have already been passed, primarily losing hardship monies in the future, and maybe even bringing temp-papered AMHA miniatures that have a danger of going over between the ages of 3 and 5 to permanent status. That DOES create additional revenue, after all. That same revenue would be generated though, if a breeding stock rule was passed. AND that would be a long-term fix.

 

[albahurst]

OK I said I wasn't gonna get into this but I went to AMHA's site to check on fees for putting horses permanent.I think I about fell off my chair !!!!! I havent had to bring an AMHA horse permanent for a long while so I guess I never really paid too much attention to the price. WOW.....and HOLY COW !!!!!!

That is alot of money to pay for a horse you have already registered. I think I understand why some people don't bring thier horses permanent. ok, I am not trying to put the registries against one another but I just dont understand how AMHR charges only $5 to do this and AMHA all the way up to $60. OUCH !!!!

I still like them bringing the age down to 3 but geez it is no wonder people dont follow through..... Just my 2 cents worth.

Costs are not all the same for both registries, but it all averages out. Heck- I just pd $10 to the AMHR to have a stallion now listed as a gelding. It is FREE in the AMHA. Go figure....

I am a member of both organizations, although I do not show in AMHR much. I prefer AMHA. But, I am a member of AMHR, just the same, to support that registry. I do travel many, many hours to attend shows from either registry.

And, when I have issues with either organization, I contact THEM.

I applaud Marsha Cassada for taking the initiative to support both registries now. Using one's energy in a constructive fashion is much more beneficial than complaining so much.

Peggy

 

[McBunz]

Seems to me that people are breeding for the max. size allowed now.. to get better movement.. So if they have horses that are close to the max. at three,

they make the horse perm. only to find at 5 the horse has gone over.. By this time a stallion could have produced a huge number of foals and a mare

two.. Now these perm. papers are garbage or they just keep one breeding these horses a hope they produce foals smaller than themselves.. and ignor

the fact that their breeding stock is over sized..

 

[ontherisefarm]

I'm sorry if you thought I was complaining too much about the costs. Actually my mentioning the fees was to just raise up a reason for people not bringing thier horses permanent. Not ruffle any feathers. I am also a member of both registries and also support them both. I also stated I wasnt putting registries against each other. I am sorry you took my meaning the wrong way as it sometimes happens online and I surely dont expect the registries to have the same fee schedules. But paying $10 dollars to change to gelding is in no way evens out paying $60 to permanently register a stallion

$20 to register as a foal plus $60 to put permanent = $80 AMHA

$20 to register as a foal plus $5 to put permanent plus $10 to change to gelding = $35.00 AMHR

Doesnt really add up even if you do the gelding edge to it for AMHA it still adds up to $45

OK anyway, I am not trying to make anyone mad or stir things up in the registries I was just trying to express a potential reason for people not bringing thier horses permanent. I like both registries, each for thier own reasons. I respect your opinions please try to respect others as well. I am done now as I think that I have caused enough trouble for one day.