AMHR Foundation Miniature Halter

[Minimor]

You mention Morgan as having a type, but no, they no longer do, thanks to the "recent" infusion of Saddlebred blood for those wanting the bigger action, so yes, even the Morgan has different types and they are recognized as such.

Morgans have always had variances in type--the different families have different types and did have even before the saddlebred influence showed up so strongly. That doesn't keep the shows from offering Justin Morgan classes even now, with Justin Morgan being the standard for what those entries should look like.

I personally have nothing against the SHETLAND blood infusing the miniatures, though, if we are indeed wanting to stay a small breed, it is like going BACK in time, rather than forward...what I do NOT want to see in the miniature breed is the HACKNEY infusion. I sooo fail to understand why folks who want a small hackney, simply don't breed for them WITHIN THEIR OWN BREED, instead of trying to make other breeds look like them.

Sometimes it is necessary to step back a bit in order to be able to move forward but that discussion is rather off topic here. There aren't too many hackneys that measure under 38" and Shetland doesn't automatically equal hackney action. The majority of shetlands have better extension and more fluidity than the average mini--I've never been able to understand why a number of mini owners/breeders want Minis to have daisy cutter action with little or no hock/knee flexion.

 

[Sue_C.]

Sue c... I just bought a 48" hackney pony. If they could make one like him in the height of a AMHR mini I would have bought one instead. A mini eats less, takes up less space, and has smaller vehicles to transport.

I am a lover of a horse who can break well above level.

So far, those are hard to find if not impossible to find, and thus they are extremely expensive if they are even offered for sale.

I am one who hopes that some breeders can try to create a true mini hackney!!!!!!

Not everyone wants a heavy boned mini with no knee action. Just as not everyone wants an upright refined mini with a lot of knee action.

I wish everyone could simply strive for embracing different types without tearing the type they don't like down.

The wide availability of mini types is what I've always found to be one of the strong points.

Andrea

By all means, I too love the look of a Hackney, please don't get me wrong...it is not the breed that I "dislike", it is the fact that instead of breeding Hackneys down, and KEEPING them Hackneys, the "shortcut" if you will, is to infuse other breeds and expect those other breeds to accept it. Gah...it is so difficult to get a point across in print.

And nope, I have no heavy boned minis, not my type...but they don't have to be heavy boned to not move like a hackney either...

 

[disneyhorse]

I am sure a double registered amhr/AHHS hackney pony would be pretty darn cool...

 

[disneyhorse]

Oops just cut that off...

There are barely barely any hackneys that also have ASPC papers... The logistics of that we won't get into.

As far as I'm aware, you can't hardship a hackney into amhr.

So how are all these hackney ponies being infused into amhr?

Are you just suggesting the modern Shetlands who may have a hackney on their papers somewhere?

If you are suggesting that there is some "behind the barn" breeding" going on, then the root of your problem is not evil hackney ponies, but the lack of DNA done by the registry perhaps?

It is kind of hard to find a hackney pony under 46-50" tall by the way.

I honestly don't know where you are getting your idea that hackneys are creeping into amhr. At nationals I only saw a couple minus that maybe could be considered closer to a modern Shetland.

 

[mydaddysjag]

I haven't read all of the replies on this thread, so cant comment on that, but I am one who is all for a foundation division in AMHR. It's not that I dislike shetlands either, I do have an amhr/aspc horse, who I like quite a bit, and he is on my show string for next year. What I also have are horses who have no shetland breeding, but are excellent horses. My older gelding has quite an impressive show record, he was the 2002 AMHR halter horse of the year, multiple national championships, reserves, and top 5's, and over 200 points in halter, over 25 grands. That said, he is 11 years old, and is not the super fine boned refined horse that you see winning at nationals today. Actually, as it is now, I wouldn't even bother entering him in halter at nationals. He is not by any means a sub par horse, and I'm sure he has a more substantial show record than many of the horses winning in the halter ring today. When you are surrounded by Shetlands (whom I also love) you are the odd man out, if that makes sense. With all of the shetland blood in the halter ring, I have only been showing my boy in driving and performance classes. I really wish there was still a halter class where there was a level playing field for these "foundation" style miniatures. I think if we had a foundation class, MANY horses would have a much longer show career, not just tossed out to be breeding stock after they are three.

 

[Sue_C.]

Oops just cut that off...

There are barely barely any hackneys that also have ASPC papers... The logistics of that we won't get into.

As far as I'm aware, you can't hardship a hackney into amhr.

So how are all these hackney ponies being infused into amhr?

Are you just suggesting the modern Shetlands who may have a hackney on their papers somewhere?

If you are suggesting that there is some "behind the barn" breeding" going on, then the root of your problem is not evil hackney ponies, but the lack of DNA done by the registry perhaps?

It is kind of hard to find a hackney pony under 46-50" tall by the way.

I honestly don't know where you are getting your idea that hackneys are creeping into amhr. At nationals I only saw a couple minus that maybe could be considered closer to a modern Shetland.

It is a known fact that yes, there is hackney in many shetlands, and I read here at least once, that there is a member with a registered shetland that also carries hackney papers... there certainly WAS "behind the barn" breeding back in the 60's and 70's, that is exactly where the high-stepping shetlands came from, for the most part.

And A-G-A-I-N...ONE-MORE-TIME...I will SAY...I-do-not-hate- hackney-ponies...and I never ever inferred to them as evil???

:OKinteresting

 

[disneyhorse]

Actually... "for the most part" the ASPC allowed hackney breeding. The papers say "hackney: so-and-so" in the pedigree... It's not totally behind the barn.

You didn't use the word evil... I saw it elsewhere on one of these threads...

 

[maestoso]

The thing about having a "type" class.... is that there is a subjective aspect to who is allowed to enter the class. Unlike our halter classes split by age and height and sex, there is no way to draw the "line" of what is foundation and what isn't. So what do we do? Leave it up to the judge to pin the proper type? There are several problems with that....

Before this next paragraph, I'd like to say that I like the look that the shetland/mini cross is creating, so what I'm saying has nothing to do with my preference.

I'd like to note that the reason this is even coming up, is that people feel they can not compete with the shetlands and their "extreme" features. In the current rulebook, the rule calls for any extreme features to be penalized. So in reality, there is already a rule to "protect" those without the extreme features. The problem is that the judges do not follow this, in part because each person has a different idea of what extreme is, the same way each person would have a different idea of what stalky/foundation is. Another reason is, at the end of the day, beyond blatantly disregarding a rule, we cannot control what a judge chooses to pin.

That said, if we had a foundation class, who's to stope the "questionable" or finer horses from entering, and who's to stop the judges from pinning them? My guess is that it would just turn into another halter class, even if we prevented people from cross entering.

Look at country pleasure driving. How many single/pleasure horses to we see in it that place or win? Look at classic/western...... How many country horses to we see in it that place or win? Many drivers will put their mediocre single horse into country where they know it will win. The same thing will happen in a foundation/stalk halter class.

We simply cannot have a billion divisions just to make everyone feel like they have a chance. How many beauty pageants do you see out there for girls who are overweight? You got it... so you either don't compete or you lose the weight. Fair or not, it's the way it is. There is no pro soccer league for people who suffer from human dwarfism, there is no line of modeling that calls for less attractive people. I'm not trying to be offensive, but simply pointing out that every industry has a desired type. Not what an individual is desiring, but what the industry as a whole desires. And usually these types change with time, and like it or not, if you want to compete you conform. I can't afford a National Grand Champion, but I compete with what I have and do the best that I can. That's just the way it is.

 

[RescueMini]

Ok, I dont know if this is the right place to ask, but since we are talking about a foundation class and type, this question keeps bugging me. How come the halter divisions aren't split up by stock and pleasure type like the Pinto shows? Wouldnt that take care of the whole foundation thing? I mainly go to open shows, so my show string includes both refined and stocky miniatures. Sadly my stock type miniatures don't place as high as the pleasure type, even though some of my stock type have better conformation than the pleasure type.

 

[Minimor]

Okay, people keep bringing up the PtHA "type" divisions. I have heard things about PtHA shows, but I do not show at any of them (we don't even have any of them anywhere near here) so I didn't comment earlier--I had to ask around first to confirm with people who know more about the Pinto shows.

What I've heard from various people previously is pretty much what I had confirmed by someone who knows Pinto shows a lot better than I do, and that is:

Their type system has some HUGE problems! You can't currently be competative in the Stock type with anything but an APHA horse and it is getting tough to compete in the Hunt type with anything but an APHA horse with a lot of Thorougbred behind it. Pleasure you'd better have a very high percentage Arab. Might as well not go in Saddle without a Saddlebred.

 

[RescueMini]

But since there aren't any large horses at mini shows, wouldn't it work for the minis? Sorry for sounding naive, like I said before, I'm new to the whole breed show thing.

 

[Minimor]

My point is....you divide the mini show into stock type and fine harness type or whatever names you choose to give to the various type divisions. You put in what you feel is a stock type Mini and Joe puts in what he feels is a stock type mini. Joe looks at your Mini and thinks to himself that your horse is much too refined to be a stock type horse. You look at Joe's Mini and deem it a draft type Mini. If all 3 of the judges at the show agree and place the same horse first--the definition of stock type starts to get set. A couple years down the road if the same sort of horses continue to dominate that particular division people will be saying that stock type means "draft" (if the judges tend to favor the heavist of the entries) or if the judges lean toward the more refined type of horse it will be said that if you don't have a stock type horse that looks like a western type Arab you're not going to win.

Stock type....what does that mean, really? A western type Morgan? A QH? An Arabian stock horse? Those are all stock type horses and each one likely looks quite different from any of the others, and each of those types (more or less) could be found in the Miniatures.

 

[RescueMini]

That makes sense. I guess when I think of stock type I picture a Quarter Horse and pleasure type I think of Arabs and Morgans. But I understand where everyone is coming from now. What if the rules defined the different types in detail? Or would you still run into the same problem?

 

[Sue_C.]

Stock type....what does that mean, really? A western type Morgan? A QH? An Arabian stock horse? Those are all stock type horses and each one likely looks quite different from any of the others, and each of those types (more or less) could be found in the Miniatures.

In the Pinto Association, stock type is Quarterhorse type, pleasure type is Arabian, and so on...it really is pretty basic and simple, if they can do it, with the infusion of several breeds including grades of differing shapes and sizes, so can we.

 

[RescueMini]

In the Pinto Association, stock type is Quarterhorse type, pleasure type is Arabian, and so on...it really is pretty basic and simple, if they can do it, with the infusion of several breeds including grades of differing shapes and sizes, so can we.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

 

[dannigirl]

I just read through most of the comments on this and I have mixed feelings about a lot of it. I am opposed to it for several reasons that have been addressed. One thing that has not been addressed is what this will do to the length of area and national shows. By my calculation, you would probably be adding a minimum of 48 classes to an already 3 day area show that in most cases already has upwards to 500 classes on the list. This will put a strain on everyone connected to the show from exhibitors to judges and show management. We cannot keep adding divisions to these mandatory class lists. Our national show already lasts 11 days. If we add a whole new division, we may as well add at least one and possibly two days to that show because it probably won't stop at halter classes. Once halter gets approved, it is a short hop to adding a whole line of youth, amateur and driving classes. When we start suggesting that divisions and classes be added, we need to keep that in mind also. If you try to say that a person does not need to stay for the whole national show, then which part do we not stay for?--the youth and amateur stuff on the first days or the performance and stake classes on the last days? I understand your reasoning, but I truely feel the "adding" needs to stop somewhere.

Angie

 

[Minimor]

In the Pinto Association, stock type is Quarterhorse type, pleasure type is Arabian, and so on...it really is pretty basic and simple, if they can do it, with the infusion of several breeds including grades of differing shapes and sizes, so can we.

Sue, did you even read my post about the problems with Pinto....where stock type means Paint-O, as someone joked to me yesterday, and if your stock type pinto isn't a registered Paint you're pretty much out of luck???

 

[Sue_C.]

Sue, did you even read my post about the problems with Pinto....where stock type means Paint-O, as someone joked to me yesterday, and if your stock type pinto isn't a registered Paint you're pretty much out of luck???

Well, to be true to the type, (and judges don't see the papers) if you are showing a Quarterhorse-ish pinto against a paint, that would be difficult to place against, if the conformation of both was similar. I know what showing the "big-guys" is like...I showed both Appaloosa and Quarterhorse myself back in the day...but we have to start somewhere, and this seems as reasonable a place to start as any.

 

[Jill]

We simply cannot have a billion divisions just to make everyone feel like they have a chance. How many beauty pageants do you see out there for girls who are overweight? You got it... so you either don't compete or you lose the weight. Fair or not, it's the way it is. There is no pro soccer league for people who suffer from human dwarfism, there is no line of modeling that calls for less attractive people. I'm not trying to be offensive, but simply pointing out that every industry has a desired type. Not what an individual is desiring, but what the industry as a whole desires. And usually these types change with time, and like it or not, if you want to compete you conform. I can't afford a National Grand Champion, but I compete with what I have and do the best that I can. That's just the way it is.

That is exactly how I see it, too, Matt.

Another thing, too, is that competition can bring about improvement. It shouldn't be watered down.

 

[Sue_C.]

Another thing, too, is that competition can bring about improvement. It shouldn't be watered down.

And goodness knows it is "watered down" enough as it is...with horses only competing against horses of pretty-much the same size. If we combined several SIZE classes together, we would HAVE room for "Type" classes. Personally, I have always thought it rather silly to have so MANY size-related break-ups in classes, when it is supposed to be CONFORMATION that is judged...not type. So a well-built 26" horse should certainly be competitive with a similarly conformed horse of larger size. Case in point, several times I have entered my minis in both open shows, and Arabian open classes, and beaten the larger horses; twice taken the Championship...and I have heard the same from many who compete in Pinto shows...so why be "afraid" to compete with a taller miniature?