Anyone else get an email from Martha Hickham

[Mona]

Anyway- my point is...... I am tired of banging my head against the wall with the politics of AMHA. I am tired of Directors not doing anything to help the members and make proposals for what their constituents want. It isn't just you Jody- it appears to be almost all of them when you talk to the members who are not politically involved themselves. They feel they have no voice. And I am sorry- but going to the National meeting doesn't fix it- you only get to vote on what the committees want to get thru- they dont help the members make their proposals correct in the fashion they want it to be- they don't take the time prior to the National Meeting to discuss with the people who submit them to be sure they are correct according to the rules and bylaws. I am not the only one who has tried to make changes that have been unsuccessful.

I also agree with the above quote by Robin. It's not a personal attack towards any one person, but instead, a valid statement. Overall, I would think that the Directors SHOULD be helping with such things to ensure they ARE in the correct format, and that all bases required by AMHA for such a proposal ARE included and in order to be presented to the board.

 

[rabbitsfizz]

Very well said, Robin, very well said indeed!!!

And Debby

."..why do you think this way of measuring was put into place to start with? "

Because some Directors wanted the limit at 36" because their horses would not measure under 34" to the withers-others wanted the limit set at 34" so they compromised and put it at what at the time was half way down the back and the over-height horses measured in!!!

Obviously.

 

[HGFarm]

It does NOT MATTER where the horse is measured from- the withers or the last of the mane hair, there are folks that are going to cheat and squabble!! Other breeds measure to the withers and they have the SAME PROBLEM!!!!

It is not just the measurers either. I have seen 'trainers' and some of the 'important' people flat get in their face when a horse was not measuring in right to the 'right class'. The folks doing the measuring are really in the 'hot seat' when it comes to this.

It is all about winning, money and greed. Makes it not so fun for others of us who like to show and have a good time.

Many years ago the Appaloosa Horse Club didnt allow non colored horses to compete at anything. They were breeding stock only. Some of the big breeders and big guys in the 'business' decided that since they paid thousands of dollars to breed to a champion QH or TB and got a solid foal- oh dear, they are losing on this investment, so they changed the rules to allow horses without visible color to show. More and more solids started to appear on the scene and the breed was quickly losing one of the things it was noted for- their color.

My personal opinion is, this is all the result of the 'Good Ol' Boys' club, where you play by THEIR rules, and keep your mouth shut, or out you go!!!

 

[minie812]

I know I am new at this. It is so disheartning to see how much dishonesty is going on in AMHA. I used to raise and show Great Danes and when I moved to the midwest from Ohio with my eastern dogs, people came from all over the state to look at my first litter (and to bash the bloodlines) I could not win in the local level (the judge also had his dogs in the shows & they always won, but when I took them to a bigger show -guess what? They beat out his dogs- I put to much time & money into them and just quit showing because everyone was afraid of being blackballed(including me) & going against this guy. It happens everywhere not just in the dog world but it sure discourages me from wanting to show or be involved again in showing. How can an organization stay in business when they will not POLICE their own people. Outside independent measureing would be a step in the right direction & AMHA should be glad to do it!

 

[rabbitsfizz]

I ABSOLUTELY agree that wherever you measure to the problem will be the same.

It's just that if all this is being sorted out, sorting out the place they are measured to at the same time would seem to be logical.

But I agree it will not make the problem go away on it's own.

We have always measured to the withers and we still have enormous arguments over measuring.

I loved the comment about "if it goes over 38" ...get a saddle!!!"

 

[Debby - LB]

Very well said, Robin, very well said indeed!!!

And Debby

."..why do you think this way of measuring was put into place to start with? "

Because some Directors wanted the limit at 36" because their horses would not measure under 34" to the withers-others wanted the limit set at 34" so they compromised and put it at what at the time was half way down the back and the over-height horses measured in!!!

Obviously.

Why? Because it had to be somewhere and the height was set at 34" at a place they I'm sure agonized over...... way back then you'd be hard pressed to find a way to measure a miniature at the withers. Now there are many nice withered horses, look in the old magazines at the mutton withered, high butts. How the heck would a height registry make the rule to measure at the wither? when you couldn't find it?

Actually I thought the rule said "measured at the withers at the last hair of the mane"? Well I've always measured mine at the highest part of the wither. Maybe we just need to measure at the highest point of the BUTT! lots less to get in the way there, lots less subjective than adding hair and dying it.

And Robin not picking on you and yours but it all goes back to your needs being self serving, what registry are you all going to go to when you breed yourself out of the AMHR B division? It has to stop somewhere AMHA is 34 AMHR is 38. If you like the larger horses keep them in AMHR until you can breed them down to the AMHA size. I'm sure that in trying to get that nice leg under the horses you were not intending to breed oversize horses but it's happening, this is what makes the under 34 horse so special..the ones who actually stay under. What is so hard about realizing that some of those horses won't meet the AMHA standard?

All this comes up almost every year. So who is going to fix it? We have a forum here, we have the registries voice right here. We have people here who work within AMHA, who work for AMHA but yet were building a group standing ready to take it over and save it, to me it wouldn't need saving if the same people were working as hard to implement the standing rules.

What is so darn hard about measuring a little horse and if it goes over height realizing that you did not meet the standard? It's a LITTLE HORSE people it's not hard to do this. Until WE find someone who will help change the measuring process this will keep going on.

 

[Belinda]

Jody- were you in Florida at the National Meeting? My proposal was heard by the members in Florida- I stood up and discussed why I felt as many others the need for it. Mr. Ed Sisk and Ron Scheuring stood up and disagreed. It did not pass. I was shocked to see many people change their votes once they had an audience looking at them from when it was discussed in e-mails and letters that they were in agreement with the proposal. It was very simple and to the point- basically... "Any foal born that matures over 34" but is out of 2 AMHA registered horses under 34", can keep their registration papers- however - be deemed for breeding purposes only." AMHA was in a financial slump at the time- we sure could have used those permanent registration $$$ in stead of them going to AMHR. We sure could use the registration $$$ out of the foals that they can produce- that can just as likely be under 34" at maturity as they can be over. We sure could use the $$$ when these horses are transferred. We sure could use the genetics of the taller horses so we don't breed ourselves into "Dwarf-dom"!
Anyway- my point is...... I am tired of banging my head against the wall with the politics of AMHA. I am tired of Directors not doing anything to help the members and make proposals for what their constituents want. It isn't just you Jody- it appears to be almost all of them when you talk to the members who are not politically involved themselves. They feel they have no voice. And I am sorry- but going to the National meeting doesn't fix it- you only get to vote on what the committees want to get thru- they dont help the members make their proposals correct in the fashion they want it to be- they don't take the time prior to the National Meeting to discuss with the people who submit them to be sure they are correct according to the rules and bylaws. I am not the only one who has tried to make changes that have been unsuccessful

Robin,

You have made some outstanding points. And as to your proposal we have tried to get that voted on several times. It just boggle's my brain how in AMHA when two parents have a offspring that ends up going over the almighty 34" it becomes worthless in the Powers that Be Eyes !!!!

But that same foal might have two or 3 full siblings that measure under 34" and they are great !! ??? How can that be?? Wake up people how do you justify that .

Why not have a over 34" breeding stock division if you do not want to show them. Heck some of my over division mares I can not get a foal over 34" out of and that is with me trying to get the over division .. And guess what I bet I am not the only one that has mares that are 35" but will not produce a foal over 34", but yet you want to throw those mares away so to speak ! OH! OH!

And Robin I as a director for AMHR have tried to help members reword or rework their proposals if there was a problem with them and the committee did not think they would fly as it was.. But also in AMHR when a proposal is read on the floor , and discussed if the person who submitted the proposal is there, they have the option of reworking it to make it work for everyone if that is what the membership wants, sometimes it takes just changing one word..

And as to how your Mom and Dad feel about the politics in AMHA

I too have been there with them , and my feeling's are much the same.. You feel like anymore when you try and offer up any ideas, or thoughts if it not their way of thinking they do this.. just

I very much feel that there is more than enough room for both Assoc. and my hope is someday that we can all work together for the betterment of these small equine that we all share in common .

One last thing , to those that say that it is to hard or impossible to find the withers on the Mini's that is not True !! As all horses have withers, some may just be less prominent than others but they are there..

On my shetlands that I show , I have lots of people measure them and no matter who are where I have never had my ponies measure more than a 1/8" to 1/4" different and that is because the wither is the same

 

[JWC sr.]

Robin,

there is one thing about you girl, you are not afraid to get right in there and say what is on your mind. LOL

As you know sometimes you and I do not agree on some points, but I always have respected you for speaking your mind. Keep it up, please.

As far as the changes in measuring rules are concerned you and I both know that any time the BOD decides there is a need for a change to any rule/regulation. They have the ability to declare it an emergency and change the rule or regulation without the approval of the general membership.

We have seen this used on much more trivial problems and I would think that if it was truly of importance to the BOD and/or Executive Board they would address it in a manner to move forward with changes whatever they might be in the rules, practices etc.. Personally I like the breeding only proposal you made.

On another point, while they are indeed some stewards that measure according to who and what people ask for (ie: can you put this horse in the 32 & under class?). There also some others that do as good a job as they are allowed to by the show management. But everyone involved in the show circut has seen mangement go to stewarts at different times and tell them to be accomodating to the exhibitors so as not to impact the attendance at future shows. It sucks, but is a fact of life.

Untill that changes this problem will never be rectified. One thing I can assure you though when our group puts on the "Ultimate Event" in April of next year, the measuring will be correct and honest. If someone's horse measures out so be it, we will be video taping the measuring, have a founding member present along with the stewart at every measuring period and attempt to do it right. I wish we could use the wickets etc. like we wanted to but as AMHR & AMHA sanctioned shows we have to follow the rules as written for both registries.

Last but not least, you BOD members that are reading this, please do not think that I do not appreciate the work most of you do for the associations with no pay. The majority of you are good folks that went into the office hoping to do some good. I realize that it is indeed frustrating many times when you can't get things done that you want to or feel that should be done. Please continue to try and make the decisions that you feel are best for the majority of the members. And Please push the issues, whatever they may be so to speak. If you can accomplish that then you will have the respect of the majority of the rest of us. we may complain from time to time in order to bring certain issues to the forefront, but it will not done as a personal affront or with malice towards you personally. Sometimes we may just agree to disagree. LOL

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

Well I have to say I dont see much difference in those that work very hard to proudce the correct and balanced little ones (in this conversation meaning 34 and under) do they work any less hard when they have a foal that is now 34.50 or was he an easy one to come by? Who decided it was more difficult to get the 33.75 in correct horse then the 34.50 horse?????

LEts be honest there are icky horses in all height divisions including up to 17-18 hands. So all breeders work equally as hard (or have some great luck) when it comes to putting out a nice, correct balanced horse.

I dont think it is any harder to do with a 31 in horse then it is a 17 hand horse. Bottom line is you have to start with parents that are correct and balanced and then hope the rest falls into place. Same issue of genetics working with or against you no matter what size or breed the horse.

IF the gene pool for you to choose from is less in size then other size horses well.. that doesnt mean you do better it means.. some other breeders chose to not care about anything other then size - no different then color breeders in big horses dealing with those who only bred for color ect...

Now of course 34 and under was the size that AMHA decided to go with that part we all know- measuring will never be truly fair that part we all know- nothing in life is ever truly fair... another thing we all know

AMHR has those issues as well but to be perfectly honest.. when my horse doesnt win a class I dont say OMG it is cause that horse next to me was one inch bigger then her it was simply cause on that day in that moment that horse looked better then mine give or take that one inch -- that horse next to me being one inch shorter surely would not have made my horse look any better in the ring or made me present her better or made her behave better or made her give her neck at that presicse moment the judge was looking.

( I have always wished I could yell HEY JUDGe LOOK NOW - SEE NOW SHE LOOKS GREAT) since they always seem to look good as the judge moves on to the horse next to me..

I think the bottom line is this comes to a breed or a height registry there are pros and cons to each but no matter what method is used to measure there will always be conversations like this cause someone felt it was unfair or someone else found a secret way around the method. Such as life...

IF AMHA wants to DNA and PQ and all of that stuff as if they were a BREED registry then they need to follow the rest thru otherwise really what difference does it make if you really think about it??

Your PQ,d DNA'd TRUE MINIATURE (in there words) is now... useless and illigetimate... even though he has PQ'd to be out of other legitmate stock.. simply due to 1/4 inch..

Just never made sense to me

 

[Robin]

"And Robin not picking on you and yours but it all goes back to your needs being self serving, what registry are you all going to go to when you breed yourself out of the AMHR B division? It has to stop somewhere AMHA is 34 AMHR is 38. If you like the larger horses keep them in AMHR until you can breed them down to the AMHA size. I'm sure that in trying to get that nice leg under the horses you were not intending to breed oversize horses but it's happening, this is what makes the under 34 horse so special..the ones who actually stay under. What is so hard about realizing that some of those horses won't meet the AMHA standard?"

Debby- It isn't a matter of breeding for oversized or being self serving- it is called genetics- obviously you haven't produced many foals - at least numbers wise. We are talking about a breed- not height. Are we a breed? We - at Little King Farm breed for a breed type- we do not breed for height. I have horses that are only AMHR registered, only ASPC registered, only ASHR and many that are double and triple papered. We breed to fit type and quality- where they end up is where they end up height wise. If they fit into AMHA- we hardship them if need be. AMHA is only height- there is no type in AMHA. There is no type in AMHR- if it fits in height great- if not- oh well. Both registries have a dwarf issue- that again is a breed issue- oh but the miniature horse isn't a breed.

Yes- when you breed for type and quality- you do produce horses of different heights. I have a Buck Echo daughter whose sire is 28.25" and a mother that is 32" and it is over 34"- well over. Do you think I knew that was going to happen? I had a 25% chance genetically- that it would go over, I had a 75% chance it wouldn't - so what do I do? I have 3 full siblings all between 29-31". HUMMMMM. I guess I should stick with AMHR then. I personally don't want to breed down to the dwarf size. I try to produce the best horse that I can at whatever height it ends up.

We are not arguing about height here- it is breed credibility...... oh but there is no "miniautre horse breed".

As usual the AMHA tries to re-invent the wheel and act so almighty when in the big picture of the horse industry AMHA is a speck of the population. Let's get real here- you can't change bone- you can't make them shrink. And for those of you who think the "old miniatures" didn't have a wither- well that is ludicrous. If they anatomically did not have a wither, they were not a horse. Withers are located at the top of the shoulder- some horses are more predominat than others- but it doesn't mean they don't have one. Some of the "old miniatures" are still alive today- why don't you check them out- Buckeroo is 30 years old in May- he has one of the most predominant withers you can find- oh but I forgot- he is nothing but a small shetland pony. Buckeroo is 30.5" he has produced over 34" foals bred to under 34" horses. I didn't know trying to breed for quality and wanting to see good genetics kept as breedable stock to perpetuate the quality of the "breed" was considered self serving- I thought just the opposite.

Robin-LKF

 

[Jag and Inti's Mom]

I am sorry, but all of this hubbub is one of the reasons I choose not to go to AMHA shows. There is always some controversey and always someone sneaking in. I am not saying that it doesn't happen in other venues, but you can usually guarantee something "slick" going on at the AMHA shows. I have four horses 2 are under 34 and two are over. I have never tried to sneak an over horse in but have seen many others do so. I have also seen/know of "trainers" that have clipped a horses feet to the point of them being lame, and then iced them down, just to get into a class. I would rather not participate in an event that pushes people to that extent. Get honest in your measuring, and in your showing.

 

[runamuk]

"And Robin not picking on you and yours but it all goes back to your needs being self serving, what registry are you all going to go to when you breed yourself out of the AMHR B division? It has to stop somewhere AMHA is 34 AMHR is 38. If you like the larger horses keep them in AMHR until you can breed them down to the AMHA size. I'm sure that in trying to get that nice leg under the horses you were not intending to breed oversize horses but it's happening, this is what makes the under 34 horse so special..the ones who actually stay under. What is so hard about realizing that some of those horses won't meet the AMHA standard?"

Debby- It isn't a matter of breeding for oversized or being self serving- it is called genetics- obviously you haven't produced many foals - at least numbers wise. We are talking about a breed- not height. Are we a breed? We - at Little King Farm breed for a breed type- we do not breed for height. I have horses that are only AMHR registered, only ASPC registered, only ASHR and many that are double and triple papered. We breed to fit type and quality- where they end up is where they end up height wise. If they fit into AMHA- we hardship them if need be. AMHA is only height- there is no type in AMHA. There is no type in AMHR- if it fits in height great- if not- oh well. Both registries have a dwarf issue- that again is a breed issue- oh but the miniature horse isn't a breed.

Yes- when you breed for type and quality- you do produce horses of different heights. I have a Buck Echo daughter whose sire is 28.25" and a mother that is 32" and it is over 34"- well over. Do you think I knew that was going to happen? I had a 25% chance genetically- that it would go over, I had a 75% chance it wouldn't - so what do I do? I have 3 full siblings all between 29-31". HUMMMMM. I guess I should stick with AMHR then. I personally don't want to breed down to the dwarf size. I try to produce the best horse that I can at whatever height it ends up.

We are not arguing about height here- it is breed credibility...... oh but there is no "miniautre horse breed".

As usual the AMHA tries to re-invent the wheel and act so almighty when in the big picture of the horse industry AMHA is a speck of the population. Let's get real here- you can't change bone- you can't make them shrink. And for those of you who think the "old miniatures" didn't have a wither- well that is ludicrous. If they anatomically did not have a wither, they were not a horse. Withers are located at the top of the shoulder- some horses are more predominat than others- but it doesn't mean they don't have one. Some of the "old miniatures" are still alive today- why don't you check them out- Buckeroo is 30 years old in May- he has one of the most predominant withers you can find- oh but I forgot- he is nothing but a small shetland pony. Buckeroo is 30.5" he has produced over 34" foals bred to under 34" horses. I didn't know trying to breed for quality and wanting to see good genetics kept as breedable stock to perpetuate the quality of the "breed" was considered self serving- I thought just the opposite.

Robin-LKF

I completely agree. Either the miniature horse is a BREED or its not. If it is not then why all the DNA and PQ...who cares so long as it is under 34. And if it is then all DNA and PQ horses regardless of height ARE miniature horses.

AMHA cannot have its cake and eat it too.....

 

[sfmini]

You are right, I do need to step up and be more proactive with the members I represent. Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania. I will own that one. BUT. My phone and email and fax remain totally silent as far as members wanting help or to ask a question, and I would never limit contact or assistance to any member based on their geographic location. Hello, I am not a mind reader. I do promise to devote more time to reviewing the proposals that members are submitting to committees for the next meeting and will contact submitters with questions if I have them.

If I had tried to help you with your proposal, I probably would have gotten it wrong in Florida, as I don't know the nuances of the bylaw change process and the timing game you have to play to get them changed before you get the regular rules changed, so I would have screwed you up. The committee chairs are the people who are the experts in their part of the rulebook and are the ones to help. The vote against your changes if I remember correctly, and I have to say I was having a bunch of trouble hearing and knee pain and was very distracted..... anyway, that vote was because the rule changes would have been in violation of the bylaws and there wasn't a proposal in place for them.

I am not expert in these parts of AMHA, so I have for the most part buried myself in the computer woes, an area where I am expert and comfortable in making my opinions heard.

You know, though, after a phone conversation I had with a friend, I do have to say our woes as far as the 'cheating' in the show arena are pretty small compared with other breeds. This friend has a friend who is extemely high up in US Equestrian drug testing. Wow. That conversation was an eye opener. How about this? a 1/4 horse died at a show recently of botulism. Well, I said, that happens. Oh no. People are INJECTING their 1/4 horses with BOTOX to 'sculpt' their bodies. Guess they haven't yet figured out what is a toxic fatal level. Or, you all remember the famous saddlebreds that died hideous deaths that supposedly were done by someone breaking into the property? It seems that COBRA VENOM is used to get the extra lick in stride. She gave more examples, but I was still just stunned at these. How sad that when money and competition is involved there are people who will do anything to win and darn the animals and the consequences. I sure do hope we never get to that point!

All I am saying is while I am sad that such crap goes on, I am glad that at least so far we don't have (or at least not that we know about) that kind of crap.

 

[rabbitsfizz]

IMO the Mini is not yet a breed.

If it were not for the height there is NO way you could point at a horse and say, as you can , for example of an Arab, and say "that is a Miniature Horse"

There is absolutely no consistency of type.

And, they way things are going, there never will be.

If the book is closed- so what??

It will not make a breed out of an animal that has only one thing in common with the others in it's registry- namely it's height.

Keep it as a height registry, that is where it belongs.

And as to the horse of thirty years ago not having withers??

Absolute RUBBISH Rabbit is one year behind Buckeroo and I have NO problem finding his withers at all, mainly, I feel, because I know where to look!!

The height was set at the "last hair of the mane" for the reasons I stated- I was not being cynical or sarcastic I was telling you a fact!!!

It meant the horses that were overheight at the withers got in the book, simple as that.

Those days should be long gone, time to join the real world and measure accurately.

Never going to happen, though.

Robin I agree with almost all the points you have made, I understand your frustration and your anger, believe me.

 

[kaykay]

Just had to input that for most of us (that own the ASPC/AMHR OR AMHA/AMHR/ASPC ) an AMHR horse that goes over 38" is an American Shetland Pony

I couldnt agree with Robin more and I have to say its scary to me that a family like hers that has been in this industry for this amount of time cant get a change made then who can?

And one more thing I only own one horse that has some Buckeroo breeding but I still have to say that Little King Farm has produced some of the most consistent horses in "type" of any farm I know

Oh one more thing. Jodi is the ONLY director that has ever replied to my questions AMHA OR AMHR. In all these years the ONLY ONE!! thank you jodi!

Kay

 

[HGFarm]

I also agree with Robin in regards to breeding for QUALITY and where they fall, they fall. I also TRY to breed for under 34" but it does not always happen!!

My 07 filly this year is HUGE, out of a 33.5" mare and a 32.75" sire that do NOT have big backgrounds. She will stay under 34". Did I breed for that? No I did not. I also bred that same mare to a stallion that is 33.5" also and their foal decided to mature at 29!!! I dont breed for under 30 either because I like to drive and like a bigger horse for that. I have seen MANY other horses with AMHA SMALL parents that produced horses that went well over 34". It's the luck of the draw with these guys, but it's ok because if you have a quality horse, SOMEbody is going to like it and there will be a market for it, regardless.

If they dont fit in AMHA, there is AMHR!

The POA registry allows the oversized ponies to retain papers, but as breeding stock only. Being a half inch too big to show does not mean they are not a POA. Did the owners breed for big? Probably not, but I guarantee they will take that nice mare or stallion and breed back down to something smaller again, to raise some showable ponies. Being breeding stock does not mean the quality is poor at all!!

Some here dont seem to be getting it that this issue is NOT just with AMHA!!! It is with ANY height breed!! Making the comment of 'that's why I dont show AMHA' does not address the problem, nor does it solve anything. 'The Problem' is everywhere!!

Working for a large corporation who tries to stay on the very top end of the market, there are a lot of changes that occur on a yearly, monthly and sometimes even weekly basis. You HAVE to to stay up with the rest of the world.

AMHA is a corporation, but if it sits stagnant and no rules or by laws are changed to improve, update and 'get with the times' then it is eventually going to be 'left behind'!! That goes for ANY 'business'!!

Many folks are out there working hard to improve the breed, but it doesnt appear that too many are working as hard to improve the rules and things the breed has to live by. The ones that do seem to be quickly shot down for some reason and I dont understand why folks have such an aversion to changing or improving the rules that have to be lived by.

I have only been in Minis since 95, but have seen this issue over and over and I have many friends who have been at it since about 1980 or so- and this has ALWAYS been an issue.

Measuring in.... I dont know why a simple rule with specific guidelines can't be written -and implemented- no matter WHERE you measure to.

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

Jodi has been helpful to me as well answering questions for me so I appreciate that.

and you are right I have done drug testing at horse shows (boy there is a job for that show dirty jobs) standing there like a **** waiting for a horse to pee sigh..

Anyway by the reactions we got at those shows it was obvious some were very worried what we might find (although we never even saw or knew the results)

 

[slv]

The points made by Robin and Marianne are very valid. They have years of experience in producing the quality of horses that most of us only dream of. I also cannot imagine sending a good breeding stock mare or stallion on to another registry just because they have gone an inch or so over. But the fact is that is what AMHA is now electing to do. That is why AMHR is thriving. Look at the shows and not to mention the REVENUE. If AMHA wants to remain a height registry (requiring ALL horses to be 34 or under) then I am afraid for them that the AMHR will be the real future of miniature horses, and they shoud be. All major corporations that have been successful have had to "conform to the times" at one point or another.

I don't see what is wrong with the issue of "BREEDING STOCK" papers to the over 34' horses. If AMHA wants to remain a height registry as far as the shows are concerned, then so be it.

I am one that owns a nice 35' mare that is AMHR registered and has had four foals. Two are at a mature height of 30 inches and one of these was by a 34 inch stallion. One thing you cannot breed for consistently is height.

My main point to this is I personally believe that AMHA is limiting their future, not ours. We will keep breeding our big illegitimate minis and AMHR will keep registering them and we will have a ball showing them at the AMHR shows.

Also, just want to add that I have been in horses all of my life. I have NEVER seen any type, breed or size of a horse that did not have a withers. That is totally impossible!!!!

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

Robin and Marianne make super points.....

Several years ago I bought a gorgeous sorrel appaloosa colt. He was by AMHA parents, tiny refined fella when I saw him at three weeks. When I picked him up after weaning he seemed to have sprouted... but still an A. I always hardshipped anything I bought A only into R (that's when it was only $50 extra) Good thing. He is mature at almost 38"!! All out of small stock that goes back for generations. He is a superb looking GELDING now, I just couldn't breed him to any of our mares, the largest being 36". (Once he gets his head screwed on straight he'll make an awesome driving horse. He's just a little loopy right now....

) But strictly by papers and pedigree, he is a purebred AMHA horse....

Lucy

 

[Debby - LB]

Debby- It isn't a matter of breeding for oversized or being self serving- it is called genetics- obviously you haven't produced many foals - at least numbers wise. We are talking about a breed- not height. Are we a breed? We - at Little King Farm breed for a breed type- we do not breed for height. I have horses that are only AMHR registered, only ASPC registered, only ASHR and many that are double and triple papered. We breed to fit type and quality- where they end up is where they end up height wise. If they fit into AMHA- we hardship them if need be. AMHA is only height- there is no type in AMHA. There is no type in AMHR- if it fits in height great- if not- oh well. Both registries have a dwarf issue- that again is a breed issue- oh but the miniature horse isn't a breed.

Yes- when you breed for type and quality- you do produce horses of different heights. I have a Buck Echo daughter whose sire is 28.25" and a mother that is 32" and it is over 34"- well over. Do you think I knew that was going to happen? I had a 25% chance genetically- that it would go over, I had a 75% chance it wouldn't - so what do I do? I have 3 full siblings all between 29-31". HUMMMMM. I guess I should stick with AMHR then. I personally don't want to breed down to the dwarf size. I try to produce the best horse that I can at whatever height it ends up.

We are not arguing about height here- it is breed credibility...... oh but there is no "miniautre horse breed".

As usual the AMHA tries to re-invent the wheel and act so almighty when in the big picture of the horse industry AMHA is a speck of the population. Let's get real here- you can't change bone- you can't make them shrink. And for those of you who think the "old miniatures" didn't have a wither- well that is ludicrous. If they anatomically did not have a wither, they were not a horse. Withers are located at the top of the shoulder- some horses are more predominat than others- but it doesn't mean they don't have one. Some of the "old miniatures" are still alive today- why don't you check them out- Buckeroo is 30 years old in May- he has one of the most predominant withers you can find- oh but I forgot- he is nothing but a small shetland pony. Buckeroo is 30.5" he has produced over 34" foals bred to under 34" horses. I didn't know trying to breed for quality and wanting to see good genetics kept as breedable stock to perpetuate the quality of the "breed" was considered self serving- I thought just the opposite.

Robin-LKF

I'm sorryI didn't realize anyone was arguing!.... But this topic (last time I looked) IS about HEIGHT and measurement.

You are correct I've not bred many miniature horses at all and I don't intend to. I breed a few and certainly not every year and I do it for my satisfaction and to try to improve what I picked to make the horse what I want to look at....while staying in the under 34" range.

Ponies I dearly Love and I, like a few other breeders strive to produce a under 34" horse that looks similar to one. Ponies (no offense please) are a dime a dozen, the A division miniature horse is unique and yes I believe you can have some without calling them dwarfy. I don't like what you said about the smaller horses being dwarfy but I may have taken it wrong.

And I am aware the miniature horse is not considered a breed I never said it was, unless you are referring to my use of the words "breed standard" I guess I should have said "association standard" That's the thing here the fact that AMHA is a height registry and some people are pushing the limit on that height.

I at no time said a horse didn't have a wither that is ridiculous, what I was trying to say is that trying to get a correct measurement on a horses wither that is flat and buried under a mound of muscle on a neck that ties in half way down it's back is harder than getting a correct measurement from trying to find the last hair of the mane.

Trying to breed for quality and wanting to see good genetics kept as breedable stock to perpetuate the quality of the "breed" was not my reference to self serving- self serving has to do with the height crop outs people are producing to get this quality and then wanting to change the registry rules to allow them in.

As I did ask in another post why is AMHR not as favorable to the people whose horses go over 34" ? I pull the AMHA papers on my horses who go oversize and I don't whine about it, not that you are whinning Robin I'm talking in general here, but several are....and trying to change the rules to suit them. I'm just not quite seeing the point of grown people in such an uproar about measuring a little horse.