AMHS

[maryann]

We are members of AMHA and AMHR . We only have one horse at this time that is AMHA registered.

We are small fish in the mini world as we only have 13 minis , do limited breeding and are limited in

the amount of shows we can travel to and show because we have other jobs .

As our funds and our time limit us in what we are able to do with our minis, we have chosen to deal

mostly with AMHR simply becaues it gives us more options. We don't have to worry with "micro" inches keeping our horse from showing . Its costly and not practical for us to carry a horse to a show where he is so close to 34 he may measure out. When we sell a horse we can honestly post a height without worrying that he or she may be too close to being undesirable. If we have a horse that goes over 34 we know there is a class for him at every show , so that stress is not there. We would simply put the horse in the B classes.

We have only one horse that is AMHA and AMHR. He was only AMHA when we bought him 4 years ago and we quickly hardshiped him into AMHR. Most of the shows in this area are both AMHA and AMHR sanctioned. I love being able to show him in both A and R . I would love to do the same for my other horses but the cost of hardshipping is so high I just can't do it. I have 6 horses now that I would hardship if the cost were 600 for Stallions and 400 for mares and geldings. With my small show string only that would be $2600 dollars that AMHA would be making off my farm initially not counting collecting transfer fees and offspring fees etc down the road. Instead of the $3700 that AMHA will not get at all because we just can't afford it.

My point in all this rambeling is this.

There are many others in our shoes that just don't have the time or money for yet another registery. I am understanding from what I am reading that these horses in the S registry would not be able to be shown and their foals would not be able to be registered as AMHA even if they were under. So for us personally it would not benefit us . If you are looking to generate more funds for the already in place AMHA registry it looks like it would be more beneficial to incorproate the S horses into that registry instead of creating a separate one. Lowering some of your registration fees like hardshipping would open more possibilities to more people , therefore generating more funds for AMHA.

AMHR is flourishing right now. The classes are getting larger and the competition is getting more challenging. I am not sure of all the reasons this is happening but I can say for us it is much easier to utilize our AMHR membership. Did I mention that all our horses measure under 33 inches ?

Ronnie, you are wanting opinions and this post is just that. My opinion. I hope from this thread you get many opinions from others in all different circumstances, and the answers you are looking for to make the decisions that will benefit AMHA. Thank you for taking your time and energy to take on this project.

Maryann

 

[JWC sr.]

Ronnie,

Glad to see that you are involved, maybe you can get some things done. In any case though, I agree with a lot of the posters in this thread. Please try and encorage the BOD to merely change the rules and add horses in height that are 38" and the appropriate classes for them. there will always be advocates of both sizes of horses, in our case we breed both intentionally. I like some of the things about the taller horses, but still love the little guys. There is a place for all of them here at our farm and in the mini industry.

The one needed change that needs to go into that though also is that the measurement method needs to be changed to standardize it with all the other breeds and to also stop the problems with American Horses going into Europe, and other overseas countries that are just really getting started with mini's. Go a method of the highest point of the withers and move on. Leave the old measurements of the papers alone and just start measuring in this manner from this point forward. This will keep it less complicated and easy for folks to work with.

If the goal of all of this is more participation in local, regional and national shows, which I think it is. You will get that result by including the larger horses. Additionally the added benefit is that you can stop a lot of the current percieved problems with cheater hairs etc. Additionallyif you are after a cross over from the R registry then lower the hardship costs as was suggested by the previous poster for a short period of time to encorage this influx.

Another benefit is that with that move, I believe you will stop a lot of the talk from a few folks within our industry about forming a new registry. Again I will voice my opinion and say we don't need new registries, just a more down to earth, honest and open approach from the ones we have.

With all that said, good luck with your new responsibilities,

:saludando:

 

[Kim~Crayonboxminiatures]

I agree with Lauralee, I would be interested if it doesn't include more membership fees, etc.

 

[angelridge]

I am NOT in favor of another registry with more fees. I am interested in a 34 to 36 added to the registry now and measureing at the top of the withers. The problem is the MEASURING AT SHOWS! This has been hashed out again and again. Until we get a proper measureing stick,, one with four legs to discourage "leanin" or "tipping" and a leveling bubble large enough to SEE accuratly! And folks who can and WILL measure accuratly and are not intimidated by the big and rich,, all I see is the trainers measuring in 37 inch horses,, its got to start WITH the measureing itself!

Some are talking about not including over 34 horses in the registry,,,they are in there NOW! They are at the shows,, they are being hardshipped in,, they are out in the pastures,, breeding,,and they are OVER 34 inches tall,, because of the diversity of the way they are measured,,, its so easy!!!

FIX the main problem that EVERYONE keeps talking about! Dont come up with a place to put the oversized horses where their offspring cannot be registered. Adding 34 to 36 will allow the horses now to move up and not loose their papers.

Measure at the TOP of the withers,,, come up with a procedure for a "disputed" measurement at a show. Even if its getting an several unbiased and unintimdated person,,,,someone from the concession stand to "witness" the stick being level and the bubble between the lines. (Just using this as an example so please dont take this to an extreme) And if the horse does not measure in,,, it does NOT measure in PERIOD,, END OF STORY,,, and if the handler, owner, trainer,, etc,, acts disorderly,, makes threats,, curses etc,, they are disqualified from the rest of the show. And this may no longer even be an issue, if they measure at the top of the withers.

There just might be MORE participation at the shows,, if the horses are measured in correctly,, a lot of the "little dogs" just do not show because of this. I rarely show halter anymore partly because of this. I am one of many.

Another "Little dog"

 

[Annetta]

I don't really see that a new registry such as AMHS will go over very well, especially if those over 34" to 36" horses cannot be shown or used for breeding. Those breeders now using over 34" horses in their breeding program will continue to use their over 34" horses in their breeding program. It's simply not profitable for them to trade their AMHA papers for AMHS papers and then have to hardship the smaller offspring back into AMHA later. It's much easier & cheaper for them to leave the horses AMHA and just keep registering the foals as usual. And yes, as Kay & others have said earlier, there are plenty of over 34's being used in AMHA breeding programs now. AMHS isn't going to change that.

I think it would be much more beneficial to allow the over 34's to be registered as breeding stock than to create a new registry for them.

 

[J.E.F.]

I will be the first to admit that I am not up to date on this subject. However, it seems to me that it is only another way to short change the new, small, breeders and family pets from getting into the AMHA. This will limit the registery to show animals only. Then as a consulation they will let those register under AMHS. This way they get the fees from everyone. Fees from the AMHA are already so high, the smaller breeders are locked out. Hardship registery is so expensive that most cannot afford to do this. Many horses are out there that have all the qualifications but cannot be listed because the Dam or The Sire was not listed under AMHA. This all comes from a lack of honesty in the measuring of the height, and the fees. I purchased 2 beautiful animals one was double registered one only under AMHR. Yet, the AMHR one is smaller than the Double Registered one. Membership fees are high, registering fees are high, Stallion fees etc. are all too high.

I have since dropped both memberships. I have no plans to show my little ones, although both could be show horses. In the show area, rules are made to keep things on a honest level, What has happened to those people who winning is all that matters. Break any rule, do what it takes to get the ribbons. If people cannot observe the rules they should be disqualified, it is that simple. Honesty in Judging, honesty in showing, and honesty in reporting the qualifications.

I dont want to offend anyone but this is the way I see it.

 

[Cathy_H]

why can't AMHA just ad on to thier rules and ad the taller horses?

------- probably because when / if AMHS goes under AMHA won't go down with it!

:...........................................................

and say we don't need new registries, just a more down to earth, honest and open approach from the ones we have.

........... so simple to understand - yet WHY is it so hard for the people in charge to get this!!! :no: :new_shocked:. ................ MORE rules & another registry will NOT make things better - it will only give people another avenue / more chances to break the rules. Deal with what we have & MAKE it better.

 

[kaykay]

Why do people who deal only with AMHR/ASPC even care what goes on in AMHA?

I care because i also have a seperate herd of amha horses. 2006 was the first year I didnt become a member of amha since 1999. I got so frustrated with the office etc that I did not register any of my foals amha this year even though they were elgible.

For years i along with others have asked for "breeding stock only" papers for horses that go over. This is what amha used to have. AGain the mare i have that went over 34 has had 3 foals not one has gone over 31". She consisitently throws my best show foals so she is not a cull in any sense of the word. No way would i sell her just because she went a bit over 34"

Ronnie im really glad amha is looking at this and im really glad that amha is trying to become more member friendly. That is for sure a step in the right direction! Im even considering become a member again, just to see if there are changes.

the thing that is so ironic is that amha doesnt recognize any horse over 34". Yet many of the national champions have been clearly over 34"

Its a viscous circle that always comes back to one thing. Start measuring right at the shows!!! stop giving ribbons to 31" horses showing in the 30 and under class! start revoking all the over 34" horses showing in the 34 and under classes. Only then will amha be taken seroiusly as being a registry for the smallest most perfect horse.

 

[Miniequine]

Hi Ronnie,

This is ALL ABOUT HEIGHT

The method of measuring is NOT working and

needs to be changed. period.

~Sandy~

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

I stated this on the other thread;

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"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

:

:aktion033: :aktion033: :aktion033:

I LOVE this idea. Absolutely love it!!!

I've sent papers back on two horses that went over- WAY WAY over. One was a mare, now sold that was very close to 38", and one was on a gorgeous app colt that was small when we bought him, but now is so tall he may go over 38"! And we paid ALOT for this guy. He's been gelded ( I sure can't use him on my mares!) and is in driving training. If he stays under, great, if not, hopefully the CDE people can use him, because he can MOVE! I'll never buy another young horse without a height guarante, that's for sure!

Plus, if they lower the hardshipping costs for AMHR horses, I have at least five if not more I would GLADLY register AMHA. Two stallions, two mares, a gelding, and possibly another gelding (he's borderline 34"- sometimes over, sometimes under...) but I can't justify $4600 in fees....

Lucy

 

[wildoak]

Interesting topic. I am glad to see AMHA trying to address this, but I'm not sure an additional registry is the solution. I would be in favor of a Breeding Stock designation - oversize to 36" would not lose papers/pedigree and could produce registerable foals. The real problem I have with the proposal is this - I think AMHA has enough on their plate trying to keep the current registry running smoothly. Let's take care of what we have first. I don't believe a new registry will solve AMHA's problems, but will create a new set of issues and dilute the energies of those who work so hard for AMHA.

On the measuring issue - I also would like to see us go to a top of the withers measurement. There would certainly be some transitional issues with that, but it needs to be done.

Jan

 

[Debby - LB]

Why do people who deal only with AMHR/ASPC even care what goes on in AMHA?

I care because i also have a seperate herd of amha horses. 2006 was the first year I didnt become a member of amha since 1999. I got so frustrated with the office etc that I did not register any of my foals amha this year even though they were elgible.

For years i along with others have asked for "breeding stock only" papers for horses that go over. This is what amha used to have. AGain the mare i have that went over 34 has had 3 foals not one has gone over 31". She consisitently throws my best show foals so she is not a cull in any sense of the word. No way would i sell her just because she went a bit over 34"

Ronnie im really glad amha is looking at this and im really glad that amha is trying to become more member friendly. That is for sure a step in the right direction! Im even considering become a member again, just to see if there are changes.

the thing that is so ironic is that amha doesnt recognize any horse over 34". Yet many of the national champions have been clearly over 34"

Its a viscous circle that always comes back to one thing. Start measuring right at the shows!!! stop giving ribbons to 31" horses showing in the 30 and under class! start revoking all the over 34" horses showing in the 34 and under classes. Only then will amha be taken seroiusly as being a registry for the smallest most perfect horse.

I'm not picking on you Kay, I've read all the posts on both topics and yours just happened to be the last one that had info. in it that was kind of repeated by some others and the points I found myself wanting to address... so I'm only adding my 2 cents worth.

First though I'm sorry that you thought it necessary to not double register your foals, that may be something you regret.

Second is (one of the things I've seen mentioned before in the posts) Yes AMHA did used to have Oversize papers......This is where AMHA came FROM...the horses of today were bred down remember? We (AMHA) certainly don't need to go backwards.

Some breeders continue to go by the rules and they strive to produce the set standard of perfection WITHIN THE RULES set by the current registry...

I, since I strive to follow the rules will only deal with double registered A size horses so I know and keep a list of these breeders who do the same. I will only deal with the one's who do stay within the size limit rules and I'm sure there are others like me.

In my opinion adding a separate registry to AMHA would be a contradiction of AMHA's standard of perfection and the beginning of the demise of AMHA, as we know it.

You and others are correct and as you said (I think Kay said it) I myself also have NEVER been to a farm that did not have at least one AMHA registered broodstock in their pasture that was over 34" usually there are several. I've noticed, since I've been in miniatures, that the standard practice of advertising using the words "permanently registered at..(Usually 34")..." guarantees you the horse is over size. I know exactly where 34" and for that matter 32" is on my body and I've stood close to many, many 38 -40" AMHA mares. I've always wondered why these breeders bothered to stay in AMHA.

Why isn't the AMHA moving towards reaching it's goal?...going towards meeting the standard of perfection that was written so many years ago?

Money is the reason..... Just like having some people in power within our registry who did not handle our money well and almost forced us into bankruptcy just a couple short years ago was the reason for the financial issues, not the fact that AMHA doesn't have a separate oversize division.

I'm proud to be a member of AMHA. I don't like some of the things that happen within the workings of it and sometimes think our best interests would be better served with electing officials with no conflicting interests...i.e. no breeding or showing programs.

And Kays last paragraph which has been mirrored by many here is Right On...it also seems to me to be a contradiction to the rest of the post, like trying to be on both sides or something though. To repeat:

Start measuring right at the shows!!! stop giving ribbons to 31" horses showing in the 30 and under class! start revoking all the over 34" horses showing in the 34 and under classes. Only then will amha be taken seroiusly as being a registry for the smallest most perfect horse.

In my opinion we need the most state of the art, exact measuring process available and if any money is to be spent on bettering this registry then this should be our number one priority.

The Miniature Horse won't be a 'breed' in any of our lifetimes and that is a shame because it started and progressed to what it is now, but won't go any further with the way this registry is run..... and sure won't by keeping all the over size broodstock in the gene pool.

What's so hard about enforcing the rules as they are written? If your horse goes oversize get smaller stock from breeders who have tried to stay within the guidelines. These people have worked hard to downsize and promote the Miniature Horse, the "A" size Miniature Horse which is the only size eligible within the guidelines for this registry.

And last.....here we are with another issue already in process. Where'd the "Would you like to see a separate division for oversize stock, and if so lets vote on setting up a committee to look into this go"? Or is this something we as members are not afforded? Did I miss something?

I'll keep reading so to understand this part.

 

[Stephanie]

At first thought the new registry sounds great, but after some additional thought I can't see the use. To monitor another whole registry with new rules and a new BOD will only cost more money for AMHA. If they want to include taller horses why not do like AMHR and have another division. If there is a taller division then people could still show their horses in AMHA and not lose their pedigree.

I have a lovely three year old 38" mare, the product of a 30" sire and a 33" dam - boy was her size a surprise. She is registered AMHR with no pedigree because her sire and dam were only AMHA registered. It would be great if there was a division in AMHA for her. Curious what size foals she will produce.

 

[Amy]

"Why do people who deal only with AMHR/ASPC care about what happens within AMHA?"

I CARE - First, because i am a paying member of AMHA - that gives me the right to care.

Second- I care because we started out with AMHA -- we bought ONLY AMHA horses from some top notch farms for our foundation stock for our breeding program.

Flying W FArms, Lowell Boone & Little King Farms were the start of our breeding program.

We bought show horses so we could show our horses. WE showed AMHA for 3 years -- we won many ribbons, as well as a Julep Cup--then they felt the need to change the rules -- one had to qualify to show at a Regional (then called ) show. Since there were (and still are no shows here) in Ontario, we could no longer show. We already had the extra expense of border crossing papers to show at any show in the States. Now, we could not even show there as we had no local show to qualify at.

The new rule said you could apply for an exception-- I did so in March of the year it came into effect-- my letter was passed around & around & finally 2 days before the deadline for entries in the Eastern Regional show we received a letter saying we could show for that year only. TWO DAYS-- I asked for it in March - this was the last week in June. We simply could not do it with 2 days notice . SO -- we then double registered ALL of our horses with AMHR . WE now show AMHR all the way to the National level, we have many SMALL (29") National Top Ten horses in our barn. Our Boones Little Buckeroo Charmer - a 29 inch Blue Roan stallion just received his Hall Of Fame in Country Pleasure driving this year at the AMHR convention.

Until this year - 2006, we did not have a horse in the barn over 34". Our AMHR horses were also our AMHA horses.(Unlike Kay -- we did NOT have a separate herd) But we were excluded - there was NO place for us left within AMHA in the show circle.

(YES Tony, I know you have apologized many times for this-- but you were the only one that ever did & the rule was never changed again until 2004 or 2005) & then only to get more revenue at shows.

Now, in 2006, we have bought double registered horses ASPC/AMHR & will be joining in the breeding program of the "B" sized miniatures-- it took us 9 years to have an "over" 34" horse. They are also beautiful animals.

During those 9 years, AMHA lost a lot of revenue form our farm alone & I am sure we are not the only "small farm " that was excluded from the AMHA show program.

ALso in 2006, I have apprenticed for & received my AMHR judges card in both miniatures & Classic Shetlands.AMHR has indeed valued both our membership & our participation at shows.

I still belong to AMHA but we will no longer buy an AMHA only registered horse, as there are always comparable ones that are double registered.

We also no longer register EVERY foal with AMHA -- no real benefit to it in our area, especailly for a gelding.

I expect , if AMHA goes for another registry, then I will no longer be an AMHA member. it will simply be a duplication of the AMHR. No need to pay out for 4 registries when 1 does the same thing -- they already have "A" size horses & "B" size horses already so AMHA will very likely become redundant to me.

There are many reasons why members care -- these are mine.

We simply were too small or insignificant to be wanted or needed or included except for our membership dollars.

There was a meeting regarding this issue at the Little King Sale a couple fo years ago-- it didn't fly then & I hope it does NOT fly now. AMHA was valued because it was "SUPPOSED" to include only the tiny, correct under 34" horses.

SO, I think every member has a right to "CARE". No one should think "someone else" does not have a right to care just because they have a different viewpoint. There is always a reason for that viewpoint being different.

Thank you Ronnie for listening to "my" viewpoint.

 

[Buckskin gal]

Did you read the question? It wasn't for people who are members of AMHA! Of course any any one who is a member of AMHA does care and should definitely speak up as to what they think is wrong with it. Hopefully the AMHA BOD will be reading and paying heed to these kinds of remarks. We need one good registry that fits the needs of all members and will listen. Most of the time when listening to people who were AMHA members but dropped out, the reason for leaving was simply that they liked the taller minis which AMHR allowed. I too like AMHR for that reason, but I also have some smaller ones that I really like. Maybe AMHA will look at including the taller ones then I will really have a choice of which I want to deal with. One thing about getting lots of opinions from AMHA members is it helps others give consideration to other opinions. Show me enough good reasons for something and I am flexible enough to change my mind...heck isn't that a woman's prerogative? LOL Mary

"Why do people who deal only with AMHR/ASPC care about what happens within AMHA?"

I CARE - First, because i am a paying member of AMHA - that gives me the right to care.

Second- I care because we started out with AMHA -- we bought ONLY AMHA horses from some top notch farms for our foundation stock for our breeding program.

Flying W FArms, Lowell Boone & Little King Farms were the start of our breeding program.

We bought show horses so we could show our horses. WE showed AMHA for 3 years -- we won many ribbons, as well as a Julep Cup--then they felt the need to change the rules -- one had to qualify to show at a Regional (then called ) show. Since there were (and still are no shows here) in Ontario, we could no longer show. We already had the extra expense of border crossing papers to show at any show in the States. Now, we could not even show there as we had no local show to qualify at.

The new rule said you could apply for an exception-- I did so in March of the year it came into effect-- my letter was passed around & around & finally 2 days before the deadline for entries in the Eastern Regional show we received a letter saying we could show for that year only. TWO DAYS-- I asked for it in March - this was the last week in June. We simply could not do it with 2 days notice . SO -- we then double registered ALL of our horses with AMHR . WE now show AMHR all the way to the National level, we have many SMALL (29") National Top Ten horses in our barn. Our Boones Little Buckeroo Charmer - a 29 inch Blue Roan stallion just received his Hall Of Fame in Country Pleasure driving this year at the AMHR convention.

Until this year - 2006, we did not have a horse in the barn over 34". Our AMHR horses were also our AMHA horses.(Unlike Kay -- we did NOT have a separate herd) But we were excluded - there was NO place for us left within AMHA in the show circle.

(YES Tony, I know you have apologized many times for this-- but you were the only one that ever did & the rule was never changed again until 2004 or 2005) & then only to get more revenue at shows.

Now, in 2006, we have bought double registered horses ASPC/AMHR & will be joining in the breeding program of the "B" sized miniatures-- it took us 9 years to have an "over" 34" horse. They are also beautiful animals.

During those 9 years, AMHA lost a lot of revenue form our farm alone & I am sure we are not the only "small farm " that was excluded from the AMHA show program.

ALso in 2006, I have apprenticed for & received my AMHR judges card in both miniatures & Classic Shetlands.AMHR has indeed valued both our membership & our participation at shows.

I still belong to AMHA but we will no longer buy an AMHA only registered horse, as there are always comparable ones that are double registered.

We also no longer register EVERY foal with AMHA -- no real benefit to it in our area, especailly for a gelding.

I expect , if AMHA goes for another registry, then I will no longer be an AMHA member. it will simply be a duplication of the AMHR. No need to pay out for 4 registries when 1 does the same thing -- they already have "A" size horses & "B" size horses already so AMHA will very likely become redundant to me.

There are many reasons why members care -- these are mine.

We simply were too small or insignificant to be wanted or needed or included except for our membership dollars.

There was a meeting regarding this issue at the Little King Sale a couple fo years ago-- it didn't fly then & I hope it does NOT fly now. AMHA was valued because it was "SUPPOSED" to include only the tiny, correct under 34" horses.

SO, I think every member has a right to "CARE". No one should think "someone else" does not have a right to care just because they have a different viewpoint. There is always a reason for that viewpoint being different.

Thank you Ronnie for listening to "my" viewpoint.

 

[Miniv]

I am in favor of an AMHA-based registry that would allow oversized horses to continue as breeding stock.

However I would NOT pay an additional membership fee to be able to register my oversize horses. I would simply let them remain with AMHR, as they already are.

I also would NOT pay additional fees to take an oversize horse to permanent or maintain them in the registry.

There are enough fees as it is and I have reached my limit with AMHA.

I am also in favor of changing the way the horses are measured, but I don't see that happening any time soon. They should be measured like every other equine in the world, at the top of the wither.

I AM quite impressed though, that this is being proposed, and that AMHA is finally realizing it needs to be more user friendly. I'll have to sit back and see how this plays out. I am very encouraged by this first step in the right direction, towards pleasing the clientele.

Sounds like you and I are on the same page..........I posted a lot of you just wrote on the OTHER thread.

MA

PS: Editted to add........remember this HAS been proposed before and nothing came of it that time. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.....

 

[Sunny]

Guess my biggest concern is if AMHA's Standard doesn't recognize any horse over 34" as a Miniature, and their objective is to breed for the smallest most perfect horse, than it is counter productive to use the oversized horses for breeding. I would rather see the pedigree go with a horse if it is hardshipped from AMHA into AMHR...would make a lot more sense.

I agree completely with that statement!!

On the other hand if the majority of AMHA members want to change their Standard and allow the bigger ones, they may as well go the route of AMHR and have two classes of Miniatures and that would also bring in more money for them.

This is where you lose me, though. IF the AMHA were have two classes of Miniatures, then why have the AMHA at all? I've always hated the fact that we have these two major registries in our business, so if the AMHA starts doing things the same as the AMHR, then why not "blend" them somehow and just have the one registry? I'm pretty sure that will NEVER happen, though, so I'm perfectly happy to stay with the AMHR.

And since I'm one of those who left the AMHA and am strictly AMHR, I just want to say that the only reason I care at all about what the AMHA does is that it's part of the entire industry which I'm a part of and I still want to be informed about what's going on.

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

Did you read the question? It wasn't for people who are members of AMHA! Of course any any one who is a member of AMHA does care and should definitely speak up as to what they think is wrong with it. Hopefully the AMHA BOD will be reading and paying heed to these kinds of remarks. We need one good registry that fits the needs of all members and will listen. Most of the time when listening to people who were AMHA members but dropped out, the reason for leaving was simply that they liked the taller minis which AMHR allowed.

[

But Mary that is quite an assumption, I didnt leave due to wanting only taller horses many farms succesfully breed both. Most I know didnt leave due to wanting taller horses many left due to issues with the registry and feeling as there voice didnt matter and wasnt important

Any really it relates to ANYONE who has miniature horses as every person that left AMHA is costing AMHA every foal that is no longer being registered is costing AMHA every state that has NO AMHA shows is costing AMHA

What goes on in the breed in any given registry should be of a concern to all miniature horse breeders and something everyone wants to keep apprised of.

It benifits those who don't show or breed AMHR horses to know what is going on in that registry as well as ALL OF IT pertains to us and the future of our breed and helps us to make informed decisions on what we choose to participate in or not.

There were no shows in my area even in CA and the shows they had had 15-20 horses hardly meaning anyone was better then another to qualify. One show with one class would have cost me (and this was 2 hours away so local no health papers or hotels) over 100 dollars remember for ONE class- again not feasible for me.

Raven has had the opportunity to place top ten, National Champion and Res National Champion as well as the opportunity to not place at all. To come to the realization of what her horse is capable of. To work hard all year at 8-9 years old doing ALL the fitting and conditioning of her horse by herself - so she could feel darn good about walking in the ring at Nationals ribbon or not. I myself have been able to feel the pride of walking out with Top Tens and the realization of my program and changes needed when walking out with nothing- Why on earth do I care who else or how many other horses are in the ring and if I feel they are good enough to be there or not. That really has no effect on how my horse does. Especially if the gripe is someone feels many horses arent good enough to be there then how on earth would those horses you deem not good enough have any effect on your placing?

We have been to Nationals a few times now and have learned from all of them. No way I could improve my breeding program and make proper changes and decisions had I not had horses at the National show I can tell you in many local areas you don't get an idea of the true compitition and amount of quality horses out there. Great way for people to learn and improve.

So yes the show thing was a huge issue for me

I had plenty of reasons for leaving AMHA and from them grew my want for a B program even though again I do have some A reg horses

Although the one thing I can say for sure is.. this thread is reminding me why i am no longer a member and why I choose other regestries.

No registry is perfect and none run according to Lisa(thank goodness for that)

:

But I can say after much thought and seeing everyone elses imput I have changed my mind and would not participate in AMHS for many of the same reasons I personally chose to leave AMHA in the first place- not that anyone else should care but only letting Ronnie know since he did ask for opinions from all.

LOL sunny I see we were posting at the same time and am glad others see the importance of knowing what is going on and caring about the breed as a whole!

 

[Amy]

Sorry to diagree Lisa. The question did not state it was not for AMHA members.

It stated Why do people who deal only with AMHR/other registries care.

I now only "deal" mainly with AMHR -- but do still care - and am still a member. This question apparently read differently to some of us than others.

I read it very carefully & did not see anywhere that it did not include AMHA members.

AND it was Ronnie asking the question. !!

I felt just "MAYBE" he WOULD be interested in hearing why I care.

If only non AMHA members could reply -- he would still never know why I care nor why I left . AGAIN, we are ALL entitled to our viewpoints.

Again Ronnie-- thanks for listening.

 

[Lauralee]

To exclude people's opinions who are not members of AMHA or currently breeding AMHA horses is not the right approach.

You lose an entire market of POTENTIAL clientele by excluding their opinions. If you want the registry to grow, you have to take a marketing approach and provide a service that the current customers will continue to want, and that potential customers will desire.

VERY SIMPLE.

And the loss of that simple approach is why I no longer spend my money to show my horses at AMHA shows. We griped, nothing changed, many people left.

Would I come back? Maybe....depending on the services available to me and the costs involved. If my opinion and needs as a client are respected and served, then yes, there is that potential for me to come back.

This really is not rocket science.