AMHR Foundation Miniature Halter

[StarRidgeAcres]

I am not saying I understand the logistics of implementing such a change but I voted that I was for it. Although I normally agree with Jill, I don't here. I do not believe it would be a step backward nor a watering down of the competition. I think readily accepting dwarves into the registry and people using them for breeding is a step backward, but allowing more stock type (which is what this is in my mind) to show in a specific set of classes does not harm whatsoever to the breed and actually increases the opportunities all around: additional customers to sell to, additional horses for trainers to accept as clients, a wider audience to appeal to, etc.

I may be attributing this paraphrase to the wrong person, but I believe it was Mary Lou who said on another thread that she stopped breeding because, paraphrasing here, the type was changing so quickly it was impossible for the small scale breeder to keep up. I think she hit the nail on the head here. If we either a) were a breed that had a standard or b) broadened our minds and found a way to be accepting of more "types" more people could be involved. And personally, I think the more people involved the better off for all of us...financially especially.

 

[RescueMini]

Edit: Never mind. Someone answered my questions.

 

[hobbyhorse23]

...allowing more stock type (which is what this is in my mind) to show in a specific set of classes does not harm whatsoever to the breed and actually increases the opportunities all around: additional customers to sell to, additional horses for trainers to accept as clients, a wider audience to appeal to, etc.  

I may be attributing this paraphrase to the wrong person, but I believe it was Mary Lou who said on another thread that she stopped breeding because, paraphrasing here, the type was changing so quickly it was impossible for the small scale breeder to keep up. I think she hit the nail on the head here. If we either a) were a breed that had a standard or b) broadened our minds and found a way to be accepting of more "types" more people could be involved. And personally, I think the more people involved the better off for all of us...financially especially.

That has always been my thought. Horses that were competitive even eight years ago may not be able to place now, and what are we supposed to do with those still-young animals??

It is disheartening to get the gate time after time with a former Champion who is still in their prime, and in this economy I'd think the registry would be looking for any possible way to bring in more entries. Why not court the stock-horse people, the carriage driving folks, and the backyard novice?? That's what other registries are doing! The ADS is courting the recreational driver, Pinto pursuing the amateur, Arabs the sport horse people...breeds are expanding their marketing to bring in new people and keep them interested. I feel strongly that our mini registries really need to support geldings and long-term performance animals and offering an in-hand championship division for those horses who are sound, handsome, and useful but maybe not gazelle-like seems like a potential first-step in that direction. I think it's a natural out-growth of the WCP division and wouldn't be surprised if we didn't end up with essentially a stock-type and pleasure-type division in the end. Would that be such a bad thing?

Because of that I would be very supportive of a stock/draft/foundation/whatever TYPE class, but not one that is based on pedigree as it excludes hardshipped horses. Those hardshipped geldings (or horses who come from them) are the ones most likely to be entered!

Leia

 

[Minimor]

In theory showing by type sounds like it would be a recipe for growth and expansion but would that really be the case?

Twenty years ago the ASPC was a two halter division registry - Modern and Classic. At that time about 1000 new foals were registered per year.

About a decade ago the ASPC added Foundation Halter and Modern Pleasure Halter. At that time about 1000 new foals were registered per year.

In a short time halter classes in the new divisions were expanded from jr. & sr. classes to a full slate of age classes. Peformance classes were added in both as were group halter classes, youth, amateur, and on and on.

Today the ASPC is a four division registry - Modern, Modern Pleasure, Classic & Foundation. Each has a full compliment of halter and performance classes. At this time about 1000 new foals are registered per year.

Was showing by type a recipe for growth and expansion? It doesn't appear to have been! The number of classes has over doubled yet the number of foals being registered has remained essentially unchanged.

As has been pointed out several times - type in all registries is subjective. No matter how clear you think you have the type description, no matter how well you think type is illustrated, someone else is always going to interpret that type differently than you do. Different interpretations of type led to the formation of the ASPC Foundation division when in 15 short years the Classic division no longer resembled what its creators felt it should be. Remember, the Classic division was formed to preserve the older style pony. When it failed to do so due in large part to human subjectivity the Foundation division was formed. Ten years in the Foundation division is facing the same problems that morphed the Classic division into something it wasn't intended to be. It's a vicious circle of history repeating itself. Do you really want that for the AMHR?

 

[Sue_C.]

Was showing by type a recipe for growth and expansion? It doesn't appear to have been! The number of classes has over doubled yet the number of foals being registered has remained essentially unchanged.

But...that too is subjective. Twenty years ago they decided to go that route to increase growth...was that because it was falling? If so, perhaps the fact that the registrations have not gone down...is proof that it has worked??

 

[Minimor]

That is too subjective....and yet you cannot see how very subjective type is? And no matter how many different types you divide AMHR into there won't always be major discontent because different people see any specific type in a different way, and so someone is always going to be complaining that THE WRONG TYPE WON?

 

[kaykay]

I dont think you can judge a division by foals registered. Probably a better way would be to see how many horses entered classes at Congress.

But I totally agree on the whole type issue as we see it so much especially now in the Shetland classes.

Ultimately it is up to the judges to correctly judge those classes to type but unfortunately many judges do not understand it. I saw that first hand at the judges clinic. We are currently (IMO) losing a lot of foundation Shetland breeders because of this which to me is very sad. I am also rethinking a lot of what we are doing due to these issues.

 

[dreaminmini]

I think the whole issue that most people seem to have is that they want to preserve the Miniature HORSE. Yes the minis did come from smaller Shetlands in the beginning but over time they have evolved to be very horse-like in body and in attitude which is what was wanted by the breeders (type aside). Now we are infusing more and more shetland blood back into them again to get a leaner, finer body and the wide eyed look. Instead of being more horse like in attitude they now are a little "hotter" in attitude. And yes, it does seem the judges prefer to place those horses. But they are placing Shetland PONIES not Miniature HORSES as we are called in the registry. This is all deemed fair since we are a height registry and not a breed registry with a standard of perfection so we are open to anything under 38". It is a way for Shetland breeders to sell more ponies, make more money. But how many people buy these Shetland ponies as weanlings only to find they are too big to show as minis within a couple of years? What is needed is for us to come up with a breed standard before we lose the Miniature Horse altogether and just become the Miniature Shetland Registry.

Please don't take this as a Shetland hating thread. I do not hate Shetlands, they are very beautiful. I can definitely understand how many people love them. I can appreciate them and admire them. But I love the miniature horse and I don't want to see it disappear. They are awesome family horses. My whole family can enjoy them. This is what I want to preserve.

 

[Minimor]

Umm, what exactly is a "horse-like attitude"? Not hot? There are some very hot full size horses out there. There are also some very laid back (not hot at all) Shetlands out there. I personally find the Shetlands to be more like the big horses to work with than a lot of the Minis are.

But--with more Shetland breeding being closer up in more Minis than most people even realize, it just goes to show that a 'name' (that is HORSE rather than PONY) has a lot more influence on people's thinking than you might realize.

 

[stormy]

"In theory showing by type sounds like it would be a recipe for growth and expansion but would that really be the case?

 

Twenty years ago the ASPC was a two halter division registry - Modern and Classic. At that time about 1000 new foals were registered per year.

 

About a decade ago the ASPC added Foundation Halter and Modern Pleasure Halter. At that time about 1000 new foals were registered per year.

 

In a short time halter classes in the new divisions were expanded from jr. & sr. classes to a full slate of age classes. Peformance classes were added in both as were group halter classes, youth, amateur, and on and on.

 

Today the ASPC is a four division registry - Modern, Modern Pleasure, Classic & Foundation. Each has a full compliment of halter and performance classes. At this time about 1000 new foals are registered per year."

I firmly believe it is essential to find a way to support the miniature horse as well as the miniature shetland in the ring. As the quote above shows the shetland has remained static as a breed, in fact they make up only about 5% of the business of ASPC/AMHR if I recall the figures right from last year. Promoting within the registry itself and within the showring one type only means 95% of the AMHR registered horses are no longer considered to represent the breed standard...

So throw them away? An AMHR only horse can never be registered ASPC, can never produce AMHR/ASPC foals so what...put them on a truck for Canada or Mexico ....or value and promote more them one type within the registry? Diversity grows a breed, offers more options and opportunities to a broader audience....put value and focus back on the diversity that is the miniature horse, not just the miniature shetland!

 

[dreaminmini]

Umm, what exactly is a "horse-like attitude"? Not hot? There are some very hot full size horses out there. There are also some very laid back (not hot at all) Shetlands out there. I personally find the Shetlands to be more like the big horses to work with than a lot of the Minis are.

But--with more Shetland breeding being closer up in more Minis than most people even realize, it just goes to show that a 'name' (that is HORSE rather than PONY) has a lot more influence on people's thinking than you might realize.

Holly, I would say a horse-like attitude is less hot. I realize I am speaking in generalities here and there are "hot" horses out there in every breed and very calm and quiet Shetlands/Hackneys/ponies etc. out there. From my personal experience most of the miniature horses I have come across seem more calm, easily handled by most people including children. A lot of the Shetlands I have seen/experienced run a bit hotter and a little more difficult to handle if you are not that experienced. The miniature horse seems more suited to people that are less experienced, families, older people or people that just want to enjoy their horses that may not be able to handle a large horse anymore. Or just anyone that doesn't want a horse that is "hotter" to deal with.

When I bought our miniature horses, I bought them as horses because that is what I wanted to enjoy with my family. But now with the large influx of mini Shetland's that horse is being lost. If I had wanted a Shetland I would have bought a Shetland and would be showing as a Shetland. The minis are being regularly beaten by the Shetland's in the ring. I am not saying that they were maybe not deserving or not well conformed animals but the judges should be judging the miniature horse and a miniature horse equally well conformed will not place or will place under the Shetlands in the ring. I have see it too many times. So why don't we call it like it is and we are now the new division of the ASPC, the miniature Shetland division. It is just another marketing opportunity for the Shetland breeders to sell horses, the judges perpetrate it by placing them very well so everyone jumps on the bandwagon and in order to win you need an ASPC/AMHR double papered PONY.

Holly you know I admire your Shetland's and respect that you enjoy their personalities/attitude. But you are a very experienced and knowledgeable horsewoman. You have a great herd there. I can also admire other ponies that I have seen at shows. I had a blast watching Congress. But I just prefer not to lose the miniature horse that I love, feel passionate about and my family enjoys immensely. There is a reason that the miniature HORSE is the fastest growing breed of HORSE in popularity right now because they a appeal to a broad range of people. I just think we are making a mistake reintroducing the Shetland lines. We need a breed standard and close the books. Just my humble opinion.

 

[Hayley~Diaz]

I keep feeling like people are looking for a class for the horses that aren't up to par for winning or placing well in the real halter classes. I just don't see the Nationals as the right place to "show case" that kind of thing... and I'm not someone who's got AMHR/ASPC horses, so that's not why I'm saying it.

agree.