AMHS

[Buckskin gal]

My thought exactly! AMHA has something special in that has had that goal in mind for the most perfect horse in Miniature. That could be lost ....we do not need another AMHR type registry. Bring in all the AMHR horses that are 34" or under at a resonable cost to the people if more money is needed....and expand on what is already there in AMHA. Keep it exclusivey small or it will be the beginning of the end! As others have said, this is about Miniatures and breeding for the most perfect small one. Keep that size out or they only wil become another pony.

And as for the the ones who think there are a lot of oversize in AMHA peoples pastures....well have you looked in the AMHR peoples pastures and never seen anything over 38" Yea it works both ways. No one is perfect.! But there are those who will not have an over mini in their breeding program. I do believe the people who have worked so hard to get that perfect horse in Miniature will be very disappointed if yet another registry is made to allow for oversize horses. Mary

I am TOTALLY against this idea! Are there things AMHA needs to change to maintain its status as a registry - probably yes. Is this it - NO!!! I GUARANTEE that if something like this happens, AMHA will see its end because all of those breeders who still believe in the "perfect horse in miniature" will just create their own group who still appreciates the smallest of the horses. Believe me, just becoming another AMHR isn't the answer. We already have a registry for the taller ones!

OK, I'll go take my meds now and try to hold my tongue :bgrin

 

[Julie/Azariah]

Well, now that someone brought up the measuring fiasco, I will add my two cents worth on that.

The entire horse world measures to the top of the withers besides us and in other places such as europe they even measure mini's to the top of the withers. Why in the heck do we have to try and reinvent the wheel. I personally believe that we should all be measuring to the same standard as other breeds, thereby adding credibility to our measuements.

Measure to the top of the withers, enforce it religiously, allow for horses that were measured in under the old specifications to keep thier papers as breeders, but if a horse walks into the ring it must measure appropriately. No matter how much money a person has or how big a trainer is period!!!

:saludando:

Well, well, well. THIS has prompted me to finally join this site and post!!!!

I have said this exact thing to MANY many people, I probably drive them CRAZY!

But...measuring to the last mane hairs is way too abstract! Leaves far too much guessing and human error.

I know there are still errors in measuring to the top of the withers, BUT, the top is the top.

My opinion.....AMHA needs to come up with a set of rules that will be followed, consistantly at ALL shows. If my horse measures over.....it is over, my tough luck, but I WILL NOT cheat to "get it to measure in".

Sure, some people will get angry and complain, maybe even leave :saludando: :new_shocked: . But to be a member of an organization that is fair, honest and works with integrity, no matter who they are dealing with (the big time breeder/trainer, or the amateurs enjoying working with their horses on their own) that is where I want to put my membership money

: . To go to a show and know that my horses will be competing against horses that are truly within their height category makes showing much more attractive, it will be FAIR and HONEST!

Horses in the 28-30 category have a GREAT deal of difficulty showing against horses that are taller, lets make it fair and draw people into the membership this way. Shows should be more heavily attended if the rules are followed and we know what to expect.

It costs a lot to travel to shows and pay the fees, my feeling is that when word gets out that rules are followed, more people will be willing to travel and show - knowing that the playing field will be much more level.

I'll get off my soapbox now!

:

Julie

 

[MyBarakah]

Boy this is interesting! After reading everyone's post/replies........

Why don't AMHA or AMHR (both)....... send every member to vote on different selections given to them with different thoughts/ideas. And the ones with the most votes have it changed by what the members voted on (with the highest votes)....... That sounds like that's about the only way anything is going to ever get done!

 

[hhpminis]

Putting my own preferences aside, that being that I like the taller horses, I feel that this would be a mistake on AMHA's part to do this. Reasons being;

AMHA has been and should always be a registry for a miniature horse 34 and under PERIOD

As with all breeding programs there will be offspring that does not fit into the standard of perfection, these are called "culls" and should be treated as such, gelded and sold for non breeding purposes. It is a tough pill to swallow but come on, not all horses can be champions, but they can all be loved and treated with respect in their perspective roles.

A 34" horse is no better than a 38†or 14.2hh horse for that matter, just what some people prefer to breed. The sooner we all realize this the better we will all be. In other words get off of our high horses. Breed within the standards of what you want to have represent your farm and let the stick fall where it does and put it in the appropriate existing registry, don’t create a new one for our culls.

No big secret, AMHA is in a financial hardship. Now is not the time to take on more expenses with a new division, registry, whatever you want to call it. It is time to accept our situation and figure out the best way to generate income not incur more expense.

Now my 2 cents worth on what we could possibly do to generate income;

Let’s not be so close minded that we are unable to admit that there are quality horses out there that are over 34 inches and can be a wonderful addition to the AMHA registry in their "OFFSPRING". Keep the hardship option open, accept their pedigrees rather than having one that reads UNKNOWN, and continue to improve the 34 and under Miniature horse.

Perhaps lower the hardship fee a bit but not a lot so that only the top breeding horses will enter the gene pool.

Lower the hardship fee (drastically) for non breeding horses such as geldings that people want to show. This is a no brainer! It will only generate income as these wonderful geldings can show for years and years and supply income at local, regional, and national levels. This could possibly even work on mares; they are given show papers but not breeding papers for show purposes only. You want to grow the youth, the future of our industry? This is a wonderful way to do so.

The destructive bickering that has gone on in this registry for years has done nothing but tear it down. If we want the AMHA to work it will take all of us to join together and work together to benefit ALL, not just ourselves, and that is what I feel the current status of this registry is. Let’s get the hundreds of little guys involved along with the few big guys, and make them feel as though they are a wanted and needed addition rather than a nuisance and a "child" that should be seen and not heard. After all, the BIG DOGS need someone to sell to.

This is just some ideas that I have had in my mind. I am not a business mastermind and don’t claim to be but nevertheless, they are ideas that perhaps can be built on by some that are.

Signed

One of the "Little Dogs"

 

[rabbitsfizz]

OK...why??

The 34" horses are already over 34" by the standards of every other breed of horse in the world, so, why make everything so complicated??

IF you were going to consider this then do it as AMHR do- the animals automatically and at no extra cost (other than permanent registry cost or maybe a transfer fee if the horse went over later than five) go into the "B" register if they go over 34".

If it is, as Ronnie says it most likely would be, separate from AMHA then please, someone, tell me how it will generate funds for AMHA??

If it were to be an extension of AMHA, a "B" register if you like, then those horses whose owners are honest enough to send back their papers would be willing to pay for them to go permanent in the "B" register.

But to "up" the size and not change the way of measuring?

Well, that does lead me to wonder what is going on exactly.

 

[Magic]

Annette, I LOVE your post. Very level-headed and insightful.

: I especially like this part:

"A 34" horse is no better than a 38†or 14.2hh horse for that matter, just what some people prefer to breed. The sooner we all realize this the better we will all be. In other words get off of our high horses. Breed within the standards of what you want to have represent your farm and let the stick fall where it does and put it in the appropriate existing registry, don’t create a new one for our culls."

Some people think that only horses under a certain height, say 30", are worth anything. Others very much prefer a horse around 36", and each may think that the other's is "worthless". Neither is right or wrong, it is just a preference.

I would like to say that a business DOES have to change and adapt constantly to stay competitive and stay in business, and if this is something that AMHA needs to do, I'm behind them 100%.

 

[RockRiverTiff]

So what do I do if I have a horse that's 36 1/2? Or What about 37? It's only a half inch or so over.
This is precisely why horses go oversize. There is oversize in their background! Instead of changing the rules, enforce them!

Another AMEN to this comment!

I was all fired up to post an epic response, but hhpminis' was so eloquent and logical, I realized my heated response to this proposal would come off as bickering, and not as the constructive feedback a proud member should put forth. So here are my toned down two-cents:

My grandparents got into minis at the beginning of AMHA, and from the beginning set out to do their best to produce "the smallest, most perfect" miniature, as their guidelines instructed. One of the first fillies they bought (registration #04600) had a foal at 3, then measured over for her permanent papers at 5. So they voluntarily revoked her papers and gelded the colt. Thank God for simple, honest people that realize that rules are not suggestions. AMHA already addressed this issue once in the 80's when they allowed Oversize breeding stock to be registered for a small window of time to encourage people to give the proper height of animals already in the gene pool. Here we are again. While a registry should yield to the concerns of its members, I wish it would give greater recognition to the ones that have followed the rules all along, rather than changing them for the ones who are tired of the effort it takes to break them.

Edited to say: We recognized the value and beauty of that oversized mare, which is why we later joined

AMHR. We remain members of AMHA because we believe in the integrity of those original guidelines.

 

[Buckskin gal]

This is a reality that many don't want to accept. An over horse does not fit the Standard of Perfection and therefore needs to be eleminated from the registry. Sure we may hate to see our horses go oversize but we are in, size registeries, and should breed accordingly. This isn't about one size being better than another it is about a Standard we are to adhere to. There is enough size variation between the two registeries that no one needs to complain. Anyone is free to breed for the taller or the smaller and have their likes without anyone saying one is "better" than another. Just breed to the Standard and keep in mind of what that Standard says about size because we wouldn't have Miniature horses without it. We have a choice to either breed for miniatures or go to some other breed of horse if you want more size to a horse. I think a lot of people in AMHA who have worked hard to perfect the Miniature need to speak up loud and strong. This isn't a problem for AMHR only people, it is about the impact of changes for AMHA people so I hope it doesn't become an issue for AMHR only people. Mary

As with all breeding programs there will be offspring that does not fit into the standard of perfection, these are called "culls" and should be treated as such, gelded and sold for non breeding purposes. It is a tough pill to swallow but come on, not all horses can be champions, but they can all be loved and treated with respect in their perspective roles.
A 34" horse is no better than a 38†or 14.2hh horse for that matter, just what some people prefer to breed. The sooner we all realize this the better we will all be. In other words get off of our high horses. Breed within the standards of what you want to have represent your farm and let the stick fall where it does and put it in the appropriate existing registry, don’t create a new one for our culls.

One of the "Little Dogs"

 

[joylee123]

[SIZE=12pt]My 2 cents worth is.... Instead of starting a new registry with a new name ect... why not go back to the way AMHA did it years ago. They used to have oversize foundation stock listed on their paperwork if they were oversized. Why not do something along those lines where the AMHA horse that goes over 34 is sent different colored paperwork with oversize breeding stock stamped on the paperwork. That way you wouldn't lose pedigree, the horse obviously wouldn't be shown but you also wouldn't lose that horse from the gene pool. I know some folks out there are saying to yank them from your breeding program, but not all horses who go over are from large stock. I've had horses with 30 inch pedigrees(Brewer Bred horses) go 35"[/SIZE]on me and had to yank their papers and just retained the "R" paperwork and some of those mare that went slightly over never produced an over 33 inch foal.

Also said was something about those who have the money feel the rules don't apply to them. Well from what I've seen over the almost twenty years in the industry is it's not the folks with the money that lose when the horse goes over, it's the little guy who has spent their budget trying to attain the best horse they can and it goes over and they've lost their investment and dream :no:

Anyhow flame away :lol:

 

[bevann]

[SIZE=12pt]My 2 cents worth is.... Instead of starting a new registry with a new name ect... why not go back to the way AMHA did it years ago. They used to have oversize foundation stock listed on their paperwork if they were oversized. Why not do something along those lines where the AMHA horse that goes over 34 is sent different colored paperwork with oversize breeding stock stamped on the paperwork. That way you wouldn't lose pedigree, the horse obviously wouldn't be shown but you also wouldn't lose that horse from the gene pool. I know some folks out there are saying to yank them from your breeding program, but not all horses who go over are from large stock. I've had horses with 30 inch pedigrees(Brewer Bred horses) go 35"[/SIZE]on me and had to yank their papers and just retained the "R" paperwork and some of those mare that went slightly over never produced an over 33 inch foal.

Also said was something about those who have the money feel the rules don't apply to them. Well from what I've seen over the almost twenty years in the industry is it's not the folks with the money that lose when the horse goes over, it's the little guy who has spent their budget trying to attain the best horse they can and it goes over and they've lost their investment and dream :no:

Anyhow flame away :lol:

I'm not sure how I feel at this point.I have been breeding Minis almost 20 years.Mini genetics I feel are very strange.(My background is Standardbreds,Arabs&Quarter horses.) I bred the same Mini mare&stallion 5 times. 3 mares 33 inches, 1 mare 40 inches and 1 colt 29 inches.Talk about recessive genes.I feel that due to the inaccuracy of many pedigrees we will always have unusual and unexpected offspring.just my opinion.

 

[joylee123]

[SIZE=12pt]My 2 cents worth is.... Instead of starting a new registry with a new name ect... why not go back to the way AMHA did it years ago. They used to have oversize foundation stock listed on their paperwork if they were oversized. Why not do something along those lines where the AMHA horse that goes over 34 is sent different colored paperwork with oversize breeding stock stamped on the paperwork. That way you wouldn't lose pedigree, the horse obviously wouldn't be shown but you also wouldn't lose that horse from the gene pool. I know some folks out there are saying to yank them from your breeding program, but not all horses who go over are from large stock. I've had horses with 30 inch pedigrees(Brewer Bred horses) go 35"[/SIZE]on me and had to yank their papers and just retained the "R" paperwork and some of those mare that went slightly over never produced an over 33 inch foal.

Also said was something about those who have the money feel the rules don't apply to them. Well from what I've seen over the almost twenty years in the industry is it's not the folks with the money that lose when the horse goes over, it's the little guy who has spent their budget trying to attain the best horse they can and it goes over and they've lost their investment and dream :no:

Anyhow flame away :lol:

I'm not sure how I feel at this point.I have been breeding Minis almost 20 years.Mini genetics I feel are very strange.(My background is Standardbreds,Arabs&Quarter horses.) I bred the same Mini mare&stallion 5 times. 3 mares 33 inches, 1 mare 40 inches and 1 colt 29 inches.Talk about recessive genes.I feel that due to the inaccuracy of many pedigrees we will always have unusual and unexpected offspring.just my opinion.

Interesting Huh

: I agree whole heartedly

:

 

[SHANA]

I have 2 mares that use to be AMHA, one is 35.5" and other is 36.5". Both are registered AMHR. I also have a AMHR stallion that will mature around 31" but it is way to expensive to hardship him AMHA. Maybe if it was a couple hundred but $1200 US is stupid considering I can go buy a nice stallion that is already AMHA/AMHR. The hardship prices are way to much in my opinion and I honestly do not like AMHA. I prefer AMHR over them. Most of my mares are B sized mares, I do have a few A sized and only right now 3 are double registered, with a 4th in process.

 

[Cathy_H]

AMHA just needs to straighten up the 'measuring at shows' to have show entries go back up....that is the biggest show problem. Exhibitors get fed up and leave when their 30" horse is in the ring with horses 31 1/2" horses. That is a simple fix too.

.............. One of the reasons we went to AMHR since we are a show farm (small scale)............ Same problems in AMHR also. Lee's been showing his shetlands the last few years & they have their problems too. We small breeders / exhibitors really get tired of being dictated to rather than having a say in things................. Soooooo where to go from here? Another registry is not the answer - straighten up the ones we have - why slap a band aid on it when surgery is needed to get to the source of the problem?

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

Ok well first off there were larger horses in AMHA legally at one point. they had foundation stock I know this cause I owned a couple.

I am not sure what the big deal here is the way i see it it is a spinoff registry sort of like NSPR or ASPR in AMHR.

It will generate more money as well as allowing those horses that go over by .50 an inch or .75 an inch to still retain there AMHA pedigree as well as allow those honest breeders and sellers a place still related to AMHA to put there horses-those that still feel the only miniature horse is one under 34 can still continue to breed that.

This wouldnt change the fact that they are all miniatures just of different sizes. I assure you my 36 in mare standing next to my 17 hand horse looked like a TRUE miniature horse.

:

I am not sure I get at all why many AMHA people from the looks of this thread seem to feel that AMHA will lose some of it's "prestige" by allowing this.

AMHA didnt always EXCLUSIVLY deal with only 34 and under horses it wasn't to long ago that they did have foundation horses. I am guessing here it was about 8-10 years ago that I had mine and while I sold them a couple years later they went on to produce AMHA registered foals after that as well. That doesnt change the reputation or prestige to those that are members today

How does this change those that want to breed for what they call the true"miniature horse"?

Your right Mary personally at this moment and time I don't care much as I am not a AMHA member any longer even though I do have a few who are double reg and foals that "could" have been double reg.

However if they chose to go this route I would join again however if they don't I am ok with that as well.

Heck many of those "throw away" fake miniatures have made it here to my herd quite reasonably priced to! So really not bad for me on a personal level either way

 

[Belinda]

A 34" horse is no better than a 38†or 14.2hh horse for that matter, just what some people prefer to breed. The sooner we all realize this the better we will all be. In other words get off of our high horses. Breed within the standards of what you want to have represent your farm and let the stick fall where it does and put it in the appropriate existing registry, don’t create a new one for our culls.

No big secret, AMHA is in a financial hardship. Now is not the time to take on more expenses with a new division, registry, whatever you want to call it. It is time to accept our situation and figure out the best way to generate income not incur more expense.

The destructive bickering that has gone on in this registry for years has done nothing but tear it down. If we want the AMHA to work it will take all of us to join together and work together to benefit ALL, not just ourselves, and that is what I feel the current status of this registry is. Let’s get the hundreds of little guys involved along with the few big guys, and make them feel as though they are a wanted and needed addition rather than a nuisance and a "child" that should be seen and not heard. After all, the BIG DOGS need someone to sell to.

This is just some ideas that I have had in my mind. I am not a business mastermind and don’t claim to be but nevertheless, they are ideas that perhaps can be built on by some that are.

Signed

One of the "Little Dogs"

:aktion033: :aktion033: Well said !!

I like others do not think we need another Reg. I called and ask about if the offspring would be able to be reg. AMHA if you bred a AMHA to a AMHAS.. The answer was probably NOT !! So what is the purpose ?? I do think they should allow the over 34" but call them breeding stock ! As I guarantee you no matter who your horse is somewhere in their background is a over 34" horse !! I also think there are some other ways to help get interest back up in AMHA , One might be making the qualifying for Nationals.. more like the AMHR where you go show under 4 judges two different locations.. Instead of the points.. Hey at this time the more the merrier

: I know there are those who say there are horses that don't need to go to Nationals , but hey who are we to say if they should go or not. I don't think many have just thought there are people who might want to take their little Pet enter the Jumping , costume etc, or heck maybe even halter ,, Just for the joy of saying they went to the WORLD SHOW !!! :new_shocked: I know some of you find that hard to believe but there are people that DON'T CARE IF THEY WIN OR PLACE

: THEY JUST WANT TO BE INVOLVED

: which also goes back to the quote above , let the LITTLE DOGS PLAY TOO

:

Ok now I am off my soap box.. :bgrin

 

[hhpminis]

Belinda thank you, I think we are on the same wave length tonight as this is what I just posted on the other thread.

What I would rather see, if their truly is a need and want by the majority of the membership for such a thing, is an extension of the AMHA, not a new registry, one like before where the oversize horses become breeding stock and do not lose their pedigree. I think this is the major complaint that once we have to hardship a horse his heritage becomes UNKNOWN. If this would be a step towards this than I would consider it to maybe be a good thing. What I am worried about with a new registry that it is going to be an added expense to create it and frankly, we dont have the spare change to do that. We truly do not have it!If a presentation could be made that would show how we can start this with no expense to the existing registry than lets discuss it.

I think your idea about lowering the requirements to show at World would also generate income. Look at what is does to the numbers in Tulsa. I do think there are many that would take their beloved mini to World just to say they got to go and show. I think this also would increase the numbers in the amateur classes that is also becoming a concern with dropping numbers.

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

I know there are those who say there are horses that don't need to go to Nationals , but hey who are we to say if they should go or not. I don't think many have just thought there are people who might want to take their little Pet enter the Jumping , costume etc, or heck maybe even halter ,, Just for the joy of saying they went to the WORLD SHOW !!! :new_shocked: I know some of you find that hard to believe but there are people that DON'T CARE IF THEY WIN OR PLACE

: THEY JUST WANT TO BE INVOLVED

: which also goes back to the quote above , let the LITTLE DOGS PLAY TOO

:

Ok now I am off my soap box.. :bgrin

Now this i agree with and couldnt have said better. in fact as a parent i can tell you while I love to watch raven walk out with a ribbon or a platter I just as much if not more love to watch her enjoy the experience, work hard all year for it and be able to walk out of the ring with a smile and pride without a ribbon. To see her bond with her horse and understand in a ring full of 30 + horses some classes 60+ horses there can only be 10 who get a ribbon sure doesnt mean she shouldnt play right

 

[horsefeather]

Well said Belinda!

Pam

 

[Buckskin gal]

:

I didn't see where anyone said that AMHA would loose "prestige" if they started another registry, but they are now, exclusively, dealing only with 34'' and under horses and anything that is over 34" is not considered a miniature horse. For AMHA to add a registry for those over horses, they would not be considered a miniature horse, by their Standard of Perfection.....they are the culls, as Annette stated and culls shouldn't be bred from...or maybe the question is...should culls be used in a breeding program? Unfortunately, to have a size registry, it really isn't going to have much meaning if breeders aren't going to be using what the Standard of Perfection calls for. Would you breed a AMHR horse to a NSPR horse and think it allowed to be registered AMHR? We hear all the time that there is way too many miniature horses being bred and yet some still want to use the oversize for breeding? Isn't there enough in size horses to be breeding for the already flooded market?

And...what are "throw away, " fake" miniatures?

: Who are you quoting? I can't imagine a person calling any well put together miniature horse such things. :no:

Someone stated that a 34" horse isn't any better than a 38" horse. Very true, they could have equal quality but don't leave out the under 34" miniatures on quality because there is a lot of quality there also! It is quality Miniatures that are within their Standards of Perfection that need our attention...not those who don't meet it. JMHO. Mary

Ok well first off there were larger horses in AMHA legally at one point. they had foundation stock I know this cause I owned a couple.

I am not sure what the big deal here is the way i see it it is a spinoff registry sort of like NSPR or ASPR in AMHR.

It will generate more money as well as allowing those horses that go over by .50 an inch or .75 an inch to still retain there AMHA pedigree as well as allow those honest breeders and sellers a place still related to AMHA to put there horses-those that still feel the only miniature horse is one under 34 can still continue to breed that.

This wouldnt change the fact that they are all miniatures just of different sizes. I assure you my 36 in mare standing next to my 17 hand horse looked like a TRUE miniature horse.

:

I am not sure I get at all why many AMHA people from the looks of this thread seem to feel that AMHA will lose some of it's "prestige" by allowing this.

AMHA didnt always EXCLUSIVLY deal with only 34 and under horses it wasn't to long ago that they did have foundation horses. I am guessing here it was about 8-10 years ago that I had mine and while I sold them a couple years later they went on to produce AMHA registered foals after that as well. That doesnt change the reputation or prestige to those that are members today

How does this change those that want to breed for what they call the true"miniature horse"?

Your right Mary personally at this moment and time I don't care much as I am not a AMHA member any longer even though I do have a few who are double reg and foals that "could" have been double reg.

However if they chose to go this route I would join again however if they don't I am ok with that as well.

Heck many of those "throw away" fake miniatures have made it here to my herd quite reasonably priced to! So really not bad for me on a personal level either way

 

[Michelle@wescofarms]

As long as either registry is based on height ie a 'HEIGHT' registry, I don't see the need for another registration option. AMHR already has in place the A's that produce B's and the B's that produce A size. What AMHA is suggesting is interesting, but AMHS as it stands wouldn't interest me as any 'oversize AMHA horses that ended up AMHS and then produced undersize foals (for AMHS) would still be a grade mini without any papers or would require hardshipping into AMHA. Sorry I don't hate money that much!

If AMHA wants to add allow 'Breeding Stock' designation to the registration options for those that go oversize I would be highly in favor of this. Right now as it stands height is the bottomline criteria for both registries, as neither AMHA or AMHR are a Breed driven registry. I would love to see a 'BREED' registry. Only then with accuracy in the pedigrees as far as height, color (correctly designated) and DNA/PQ will you eventually develop a BREED that can actually conform to a Breed Standard and be held to that standard.

Right now if I found a 29" mini that had 40" parents I can hardship that horse into AMHA - here's a new mini! Unknown parentage and will in all likelyhood produce oversize foals or grandfoals. The foals can be DNA/PQ on the 29" mini but the 40" now grandparents won't show up, and so on down the line!

Also definitely in favor of measuring at the withers!!! It will never happen as the people at the convention will never vote this in, but we've all seen or heard of the shenanigans that go on with measuring - the fake manes, horses that are stretched, taught/trained to dip their backs, etc. It's frustrating and yes there will always be those crooks ready to take advantage, but at least the top of the withers would be to the accepted equine standard!