AMHR Foundation division

[Minimor]

Taking this from the other thread so as not to take it too far off topic....

For those of you who say you want a Foundation division for AMHR, what would be your criteria for this division?

- so many generations of AMHR breeding (no hardships for 4 generations? no ASPC papers for 4 generations?)

- a specific type?

People have also been talking about showing by type instead of height. So, for you, I ask you this. How would you divide classes by type, as in which type divisions would you want? Draft type? Sport horse type? QH type? Morgan type? Harness type? Western type? Hunter type? English type? Simply "Foundation type" and otherwise leave things as they are?

I just have trouble envisioning how showing by type would work when there are so many types of Miniatures--unless you divide it into a lot of different types I see there always being people feeling that their horses have been left out.

We used to show Morgans at the local fairs, most of which had halter classes divided by type--many shows offered a western division and an English division. English division could include either hunt seat or saddle seat type horses. Some fairs offered western, English and harness type classes, and in that case English could include either hunt or saddle seat type horses. Thing is, that determination depended entirely on who was judging. One year a lady showed her Saddlebred in the English type. The judge that year took "English" to mean huntseat, and told the lady she should have shown in harness type. The next year that same lady showed her horse in harness type, where she got beaten by our Morgans. That particular judge told her that a Saddlebred belonged in English type, because it's a "saddleseat English horse, Morgans are harness horses". I can tell you that the Saddlebred owner was very, very frustrated at that point.

Unfortunately I can see it going exactly the same way in AMHR shows if the classes were to be divided by type. People are going to have a hard time agreeing on what constitutes any particular type and when the wrong type (as someone will see it) wins there is going to be much bitterness.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Which is why I rather add a foundation divison then be judged by type. I would like it to be very similair to the Foundation Shetland. 4 generations back of AMHR breeding, that does not include hardshipped horses and ASPC breeding. Just like the foundation I would like to see the horses be thicker boned more substance. Also other people have commented back in draft type halter post that I had made they wanted to go back to more natural, not razored, no extreme clipping, the foundation ponies are suppose to be shown as natural as possible, would like to see something as similiar. They would also get a seal on their papers and would not be able to cross over into the other halter classes.

I don't think being judged by type would be so difficult. PtHA has 4 different types. Stock, Hunter, Pleasure, and Saddle. In the ponies they have the Stock and Hunter horses judged together and then the Pleasure and Saddle horses judged together. If we had something very similair we can have the draft/stocky looking horses judged then have the arabian looking/shetland horses be judged. We can even have fun with it and say the Stock/Hunter horses must stand square and show in a western halter, and the arabain/shetland horses can show stretched with a arabian halter.

These are my ideas. Not saying they are the best, but please everyone who feels strongly about this please speak up. I would like to see something happen.

 

[Minimor]

Okay, thank you for that response.

Sooo, which division would this horse show in? Would you say he belongs in the Foundation AMHR division if it were offered?

I still say type is extremely subjective. Ask the pony people how much trouble there is with type in the Foundation division at the shows. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

This mare qualifies for her ASPC Foundation seal, and she is small enough to show Foundation.

I haven't sealed her yet because IMO she is Modern Pleasure type--and yet the one & only time she's been shown was in Classic, where she earned a Grand and 15 points toward her Classic HOF. Some judges would say she is off type for Classic, and yet obviously not all judges agree with that--or they are willing to overlook type in favor of conformation/action.

My coming 3 year old Foundation filly, Reva, is very, very fine boned and yet she has her Foundation seal & I show her Foundation (or did last year) and not one judge said anything about her being off type. People have told me she is very Foundation in type, and yet I still wonder if she is too fine boned to be ideal Foundation type. I haven't yet decided where I will show her in 2012; I would like to try her Classic but am unwilling to ditch the Foundation winnings she has up to this point.

 

[Leeana]

How has showing by type worked out for the shetlands? Ponder that for a while. Can you imagine the hype if miniatures started showing by "type", and the "off type" horses were shown in this class and won. I can hear it and see it already. Same thing that goes with the shetlands, how far off type is to far and which horse would you use.....a "foundation" mini that fits the standard but is less then perfect and has flaws or a off type extreme looking mini that is near perfect. I almost think it would run itself into the ground in just a matter of time for this issue.

Most of the AMHR people are Shetland people too for the most part and rarely is there a time when people are not complaining about off type ponies winning in the ASPC ring as shetlands do show strictly by type too. I don't think it would take long for this to trickle down into the "foundation" mini class/division.

I just could not imagine the mess - IMO you could only do your best in writing the standard and I think it would look and read somewhat like the foundation shetland division does and I think you would almost have to throw in no razoring above the nostrils as the shetlands do, limit extreme motion/hoof...and I think the miniature horse folks who want this class/division would be surprised how closely it would read to the foundation and SHETLAND standards and rules.

I think you would have to go about it much as how the shetlands did, but it would just be harder with the AMHR being that they are only a height breed vrs a "breed" like the shetlands.

 

[Minimor]

Thank you Leeana, that's exactly what I've been thinking about the Foundation AMHR/show by type suggestions.

I'm not saying don't do it--I'm just saying don't be surprised when it doesn't work the way some want it to!

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Minimor I would have no problem with your horse showing in foundation. She doesn't scream modern to me but thats JMO, and I know it will be judges opinion as well.

Its judges opinions when it comes to showing thats all it is too it. BUT, so many people on here have said their AMHR Miniatures are no longer desired, adding a foundation division I think would bring more people into the show ring. Of course it doesn't say much when I'm the only one that is posting so of course if no one is interested as they said their were then this topic can bite the dust. I'm telling you people if you want a foundation division you can't sit back and hope it happens voice your opinions on this now and lets get something together!

Like I've said before with the draft type halter class that was offered at the AR state fair there were more horses in that class then any other halter class if not all classes. I rather see a foundation division created for these draft style minis then have a type class.

 

[mini horse mania]

Im new to the showing, but IMO-It will be hard to "breed type" a miniature horse, there are so many different builds since it is a height breed. I do consider some of my "minis" to be stocky, and larger boned than the refined "arabian type" minis you see in the shows. It would be nice to have a "foundation" , but the problem with that is -who decides if your horse looks foundation or not?? IMO, this mare (Dolly) looks like she would belong in a foundation class. She looks more the"draft" type, than the refined minis. I LOVE the arabian type minis, but she just isnt one-nor produces it...If i put her in a show with the smaller boned, refined minis-I wouldnt stand a chance...I still love her ornery butt....

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I just wanted to ask this question since I didn't know ASPC created the foundation division like only 10 years ago. Why was Foundation created for ASPC?

 

[iowa]

People tell me there is not enough time for extra classes like AOTE at the shows, so how could they possibly fit in a gazillion classes of all these types?

 

[~Lisa~]

Holly you are right type is subjective in no way would I call your mare a Modern pleasure type in looks or movement In fact if she was my mare and I were to show her I would put her in the Foundation division.

 

[Leeana]

Having previously owned that mare Holly has pictured (the second one), she is an extreme classic (if you wanted to push the limits) or a nice modern pleasure...she is bred to be a modern, but oddly enough she is elg for the foundation seal. People would flip if she entered the foundation ring.

 

[Minimor]

Oh yeah, Leeana is right about people flipping if that mare was shown in Foundation--and if she happened to win it would be even worse!! The picture doesn't really show it well, but she is SO fine and so NOT Foundation type.

 

[Riverrose28]

Maybe I'm taking something complicated and trying to make it simple, but I'll try.

Foundation Miniature Division: Open to any AMHR registered horse that doesn't have ASPC listed in the pedigree four generations back.

Judged on: The same conformation as any other horse, good bite, straight legs, etc. overall pleasing look. (Judges all have different opinions in the show ring, one show you may get a judge that likes and places the QH type, and the next show judge may like and place the more refined type. You always pay for the judges opinion)

I would also like to add that horses showing at AMHR Nationals can not cross enter and be shown at Shetland Congress. In other words if they are foundation miniatures that is all they are whatever type.

Feel free to add to this as everyones opinion is important.

 

[kaykay]

The Foundation Pony division was started to preserve the older style American Shetland pony that had no Hackney outcrosses for 4 generations. The thought is/was that the ponies were getting more and more extreme in type and movement (sound familiar?) so a group got together to form the Foundation division and preserve that type of pony.

This actually worked better (imo) before the association dropped the A's and B's on the Shetland papers. Now it doesnt work so well and because of the dropping of the A's and B's eventually new seals will have to be stopped because there will be no way to verify the pedigree like there was when we had A's and B's on the papers.

Eventually part of that original group broke off and formed their own pony registry because they were still unhappy with the Foundation division. Some of the ones I talked to that formed the pony foundation division are very unhappy over how it has gone. Like I said in that other thread it would be worth a phone call to talk to some of these people and see what worked and what didnt.

(maybe Lewella will pipe in as she knows way more about it)

It seems ironic to exclude horses with ASPC papers. It would make more sense to only accept ASPC ponies with the Foundation seal.

Minimors pony is in no way Foundation type to me. A lot forget that the standard also involves movement not just body type.

 

[disneyhorse]

Maybe they are not great photos but that mare doesn't look modern pleasure to me, either. Maybe classic...

But this is where "type" is such a gray are...

 

[Margot]

I think I understand where people are coming from on this issue. Especially at the National show B division the majority of the horses that are winning are pure shetland or have a lot of close up ASPC breeding, it is even creeping down into the A division so eventually unless you are showing a shetland there is no way you are going to do well. My minis are all A size and have no close up shetland blood, although we breed for refinement and have won Top Tens at Nationals there is still no way my horses are going to look like shetlands. I can admire the shetlands but have no interest in adding them to my herd. Since AMHR is a height breed any horse under 38" can be shown but I do think that eventually the shows will have almost all shetland ponies which I think is too bad since the shetlands aready have their own shows and the minis that are less extreme will just be crowded out. Since mine are almost entirely also AMHA registered I can still go to to those shows and also show some pinto where many of the judges actually like stock type minis, but if you have R only horses and want to show you might as well realize unless you have a shetland you are unlikely to win. How can this problem be solved, I don't know, you can't forbid shetlands if the meet the height standard and as others have said I don't know how you would fit in all those extra classes . If it were tried I think it would have to be a division that exclude Shetlands and close up shetland blood and not be based on a particular type, so hard to quantify that. I would not be interested in showing in non rated classes . It is too bad that on at least the show level all the winning miniatures will actually be shetlands but that is the way the breed is set up.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I think I understand where people are coming from on this issue. Especially at the National show B division the majority of the horses that are winning are pure shetland or have a lot of close up ASPC breeding, it is even creeping down into the A division so eventually unless you are showing a shetland there is no way you are going to do well. My minis are all A size and have no close up shetland blood, although we breed for refinement and have won Top Tens at Nationals there is still no way my horses are going to look like shetlands. I can admire the shetlands but have no interest in adding them to my herd. Since AMHR is a height breed any horse under 38" can be shown but I do think that eventually the shows will have almost all shetland ponies which I think is too bad since the shetlands aready have their own shows and the minis that are less extreme will just be crowded out. Since mine are almost entirely also AMHA registered I can still go to to those shows and also show some pinto where many of the judges actually like stock type minis, but if you have R only horses and want to show you might as well realize unless you have a shetland you are unlikely to win. How can this problem be solved, I don't know, you can't forbid shetlands if the meet the height standard and as others have said I don't know how you would fit in all those extra classes . If it were tried I think it would have to be a division that exclude Shetlands and close up shetland blood and not be based on a particular type, so hard to quantify that. I would not be interested in showing in non rated classes . It is too bad that on at least the show level all the winning miniatures will actually be shetlands but that is the way the breed is set up.

Your post is exactly what others and myself have been saying. Here's the problem people would like to see these classes be rated but you have to start them out as non-rated. That is how the WCPD class started out as non-rated to see how much participation would be for that class. The first year at Nationals they made them rated and there was much interest and participation for this class. Some people were against this class but it was much needed. Now this class is huge and almost as big as CPD. If there were foundation classes started people has to show in them if they want to see the classes succeed. If people participate and shows a future they can make it rated, and if this ends up being huge they can add championship classes and have it a HOF class. However you got to start small and making in non-rated would make it more likely to pass.

I have a post started, its about writing up a proposal to make a Foundation division and people have said they don't want to see a type. So fine, no type but their are still gidelines. Their must be otherwise its just another halter class. I'm seeking positive opinions on this and looking for help but those who want it aren't speaking up. That is a problem, if I find no interest in this I will not go further on it.

 

[splash's mom]

Ok,

I am interested in this,

I'm an owner and lover of the quarter horse type. And geez would I love to use my western halter with all the bling on it

Anyway aside from the halter, we only have a few rated shows in my area that I have never gone to with a horse because I don't stand a chance of winning. Not being a spoil sport here, that's just the facts. I like the idea of having it by type, maybe Western, Draft and Sport Horse? I realize there is already a huge list of classes and this would be adding to it but as someone who only goes to local non rated shows I could now justify spending the money if I actually had a chance. There are alot of minis in the local shows around here. And from what I'm told they're are also alot in Pinto as well. Unfortunatly I can't go to pinto with my red roan mini quarter horse and although I love him dearly, my pinto in my avatar isn't up to snuff conformation wise in my eyes. I would love to go to the "Big" show but I just only happen to buy what I like and I like Quarter horse type.Please don't misunderstand me, the show horses I've seen are beautiful. I just have always been a fan of Quarter Horses big or small and i'm too old to change now. LOL Ok, not sure if I added to this thread in anyway helpful, but I feel better now ; )

 

[Lewella]

This actually worked better (imo) before the association dropped the A's and B's on the Shetland papers. Now it doesnt work so well and because of the dropping of the A's and B's eventually new seals will have to be stopped because there will be no way to verify the pedigree like there was when we had A's and B's on the papers.

Program the computer to do it as a math equation and there is no reason to ever drop the issuing of new Foundation certifications.

Eventually part of that original group broke off and formed their own pony registry because they were still unhappy with the Foundation division. Some of the ones I talked to that formed the pony foundation division are very unhappy over how it has gone. Like I said in that other thread it would be worth a phone call to talk to some of these people and see what worked and what didnt.

Actually the group that broke off and formed their own registry had nothing to do with the formation of the Foundation division. I know personally the people who wrote the original Foundation proposal, I know who was on the Classic committee who had to sign off on it, and none of them are SPSNA people.

It seems ironic to exclude horses with ASPC papers. It would make more sense to only accept ASPC ponies with the Foundation seal.

In just a little quick research I have no problem finding ASPC/AMHR horses that have a full three and some even 4 generations that are completely AMHR registered. In fact, I have less problem finding them than I do finding AMHR horses that don't have an "unknown" or AMHA horse in the first 3 generations. Of course it might be just because I know which ASPC/AMHR lines to look for to find the 3 and 4 generation AMHR pedigrees and may not know the AMHR only ones to look at. That said, I've typed a whole lot of sale catalogs over the years and very rarely had to type out a complete 3 generation pedigree for catalog inclusion on AMHR only horses.

Minimors pony is in no way Foundation type to me. A lot forget that the standard also involves movement not just body type.

This mare spent a little time in my barn - no way is she Foundation type. I personally would show her Modern Pleasure and as Kay says a lot of that is because of how she MOVES. The colt in Holly's avatar - also Foundation certified - put shoes on that little devil (who is AMHR sized) and he'll be a competative Under Modern!

The ASPC's Foundation division is based on pedigree first - no B ponies for 4 generations. What that means is that the parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents all must be "A" papered. "A" papered means 12.5% or less outcross (outcross being Hackney, Welsh, Americana or Harness Show Pony).

The ASPC Foundation division was formed because the Classic Division with it's then only A's could show as Classics designation had failed to do what it was intended to do - which was preserve the older type of pony. The Frisco Cody's Prince VB type of pony that had won when the Classic division was first started in the mid 80's had gone by the wayside in favor of more and more extreme ponies. The four generations of A for Foundation was the only way the breeders who wrote the Foundation division could find to at least attempt to regulate type to some extent through pedigree. Of course they knew there were pedigrees that weren't exactly kosher that were going to qualify for the Foundation seal but that is where type and height came into play. A Foundation pony is to have more bone and substance AND be under 42 inches in height for show purposes.

So the ASPC Foundation division is 3 fold - Pedigree, Type, and Height.

 

[Minimor]

This mare spent a little time in my barn - no way is she Foundation type. I personally would show her Modern Pleasure and as Kay says a lot of that is because of how she MOVES. The colt in Holly's avatar - also Foundation certified - put shoes on that little devil (who is AMHR sized) and he'll be a competative Under Modern!

Yes, Lewella was a little taken aback when I told her I had entered that mare into Classic instead of Modern Pleasure at our first show this past summer. For those that don't see her as being MP from the photo, I think the problem is I snapped the photo at a downward angle, and it makes the mare look heavier bodied/shorter legged than she truly is--and she is also not half trying when it comes to trotting in this photo--anyone that sees her in person would surely see that she is not Foundation by any stretch of the imagination.
Neither is Venture, the pinto colt in my avatar. As Lewella said he does have his Foundation seal and he certainly fits into Foundation--he does fit into AMHR and assuming he doesn't have a big growth spurt in the next few months he is the stallion I will be hardshipping into AMHR in 2012.

Now--everyone that is interested in getting some sort of Foundation seal on their AMHR horses--take a close look at your registration papers. How many of your horses do actually have 4 generations of AMHR horses without any AMHA hardships, and without any ASPC ponies--and look for full Shetlands that may or may not have ASPC papers. Some may be surprised.

I was surprised when I looked at the papers of one of my BOB grandsons--do you all realize that BOB's dam was a full Shetland?? That is something I learned today!