ASPC / AMHR Proposed Rule Changes

[Irish Hills Farm]

In another thread a couple of people mentioned that "we" need to go look at the proposed rule changes for ASPC / AMHR, which can be found on ASPC / AMHR web site, under events. Convention is just right around the corner folks, if you agree or disagree with the proposed rules changes and cannot make it to Convention please contact your Area Representative and make your opinions heard.

Here are a couple rules changes, additions or deletions that caught my attention, as well as my opinion on those changes, etc.

One of the proposed rule changes, additions or deletions...

E.Add – There will be random drug testing of stake classes at Mini Nationals.

I would actually like to see this read as there will be random drug testing of any national champion at nationals, not just limited to the driving horses.

Steward committee proposals...

A.Proposals to vote on

1.Add new: No one can protest a sixty (60) day measurement card on any Shetland or Miniature who has

not obtained their permanent measurement card. No protest can be filed with the show steward at any

sanctioned ASPC/AMHR/ASPR show if said horse holds a sixty (60) day measurement card. This rule will

not apply to the ASPC Congress or the AMHR Miniature Nationals where each horse must be re-measured

to participate in those shows.

Submitted by Karen Shaw

2.Add new: No one can protest a horse’s height that holds a permanent height measurement card on any

Shetland or Miniature. No protest can be filed with the show steward at any saanctioned

ASPC/AMHR/ASPR show if said horse holds a permanent measurement card. This rule will not apply to

the ASPC Congress or the AMHR Nationals where each horse must be re-measured to participate in those

shows.

Submitted by Karen Shaw

3.Add: No Shetland or Miniature will have an annual card also known as a sixty (60) day measurement

card. All Shetlands and Miniatures that do not hold a permanent measurement card must be measured at

each show.

Submitted by Karen Shaw

I totally disagree with these proposals. Just because a horse has a 60 day card doesn't mean that horse hasn't grown within those 60 days. If the horse has grown enough in those 60 days to put itself into the next height division, than so be it, it should be shown in its proper division. I also disagree with the proposal that once a horse has it's permanent card you can no longer protest it's height. I have had a couple horses who have continued to grown past the age of 5 and because of that went into the "B" height division. We need to be working on enforcing the current measurement / height rules that we have now to get things under control in regards to horses not showing in their correct height divisions. I feel these rules would only add to the problem.

 

[Sunny]

I'm very interested to see if this proposed change passes: Delete: Complete loss of sight in either eye.

Eye will not be a disqualification if the loss of sight results from traumatic injury. The reason of sight loss

must be verified as traumatic by a licensed veterinarian and such copy must be available for inspection.

I've never understood why a horse can't show if the loss of an eye or the vision in it was due to an injury or illness. Obviously, if it's a genetic thing, then the horse shouldn't be allowed to show (much less breed), but an injury shouldn't prevent it from having a show career, IMO.

I sooooooo wish I could attend Convention, but I can't.

 

[Minimor]

I'd heard there was something on the table about no protesting of heights but hadn't gotten around to checking it out on the website yet. I would not support those proposals at all. Passing those rules will just make the height divisions a complete joke--take a tall horse to the right steward, get your measurement card and that's it, show hassle free forever after other than Nationals or Congress.

The last mentioned change, about having no 60 day measurement card--I take it that is an either/or rule with the first proposal--those two refer to the same card, is that correct? So if that card were done away with then the first proposal would be dropped?

Are most people in favor of dropping the 60 day card & measuring in at every show? I don't suppose it matters much either way to me--I've only been showing once a year anyway, but have thought that if I got to go to a second or third show in the summer it would be nice to not have to be measured in again. For the local shows I usually pull in early that morning & do some bathing & manage to get measured in and ready to show by the start time...but it is a rush for sure....if we have a second local show I'd sure benefit from the 60 day card, so I could leave out the measuring part at that second show--if it would benefit me it would surely benefit many others who show more often and more horses...so I guess I have to say I would not support that proposal either.

Will have to go & have a peek at the rest, to see what's been put out there for voting.

 

[txminipinto]

I can assure you I'm completely against doing away with the 60 day measurement card and measuring at every show. It's fine if you haul one horse. But when you haul 8-14 horses every to every other weekend that's a lot of time wasted. Measuring at every show isn't going to make people more honest. Not being able to protest a current measurement card is definately not going to make people more honest. I don't agree with ANY of the measurement card proposals.

What it boils down too is that people need to be held accountable for their horses measurements. Stewards need to do their jobs correctly. Exhibitors need to stop squeezing in horses that are over height. And we need to change the way we handle the measurements. I think videoing stewards and keeping those videos on file for review is what we need to do. And I think if a steward is caught giving a favor, they should loose their card immediately. It's the stewards responsiblity to make sure each horse is measured correctly.

 

[muffntuf]

Carin,

Or we could get the laser measuring tool, but videoing a steward is effective and used in a lot of height registries.

 

[ruffian]

Doing away with the 60 day card is unreasonable. In fact I would be in favor of an annual card for 6 months!

I also agree that doing away with protests is unreasonable. Horses grow constantly until they reach their full height, and can easily go over class size during the year. If so, so be it. That horse is done for the year. That's the way it is with a breed that separates classes by height.

I wouldn't disagree with allowing a limited sight horse in halter/halter performance classes, but would object to having a partially blind horse in a driving class.

My 2 cents!

 

[Littleum]

2.Add new: No one can protest a horse’s height that holds a permanent height measurement card on anyShetland or Miniature. No protest can be filed with the show steward at any saanctioned

ASPC/AMHR/ASPR show if said horse holds a permanent measurement card. This rule will not apply to

the ASPC Congress or the AMHR Nationals where each horse must be re-measured to participate in those

shows.

What is the logic behind this one? I can see the logic (although I don't agree) behind the others, but this one just seems like it would be opening the door for all kinds of abuse.

The only thing I'm coming up with is the office trying to cut down on height protests & the associated headaches?

 

[ruffian]

I completely am against this one:

G.A draft harness classes may be shown with light plate shoes. Side and/or toe clips allowed. Shoes may

be affixed with nails or glue. No pads, caulks, or other traction devices allowed. A shod horse may enter

halter obstacle, driving obstacles, hunter and/or jumper classes without disqualification of horse. Show

management must verify shod horse is entered into a draft class and the steward must confirm that the

horse showed in draf harness class. If a shod horse does not show in a draft class, he will be disqualified.

Who's going to keep track of the horses that don't go into the draft classes? And soon it will be any miniature can be shod!! Well, it's showing shetland also so it's going to be shod. Well, it's just slightly improving his action so it's going to be shod. His hooves are dry so he's going to be shod. This MUST not be allowed to pass - it's opening up a whole can of trouble.

 

[Lmequine]

I completely am against this one:
G.A draft harness classes may be shown with light plate shoes. Side and/or toe clips allowed. Shoes may

be affixed with nails or glue. No pads, caulks, or other traction devices allowed. A shod horse may enter

halter obstacle, driving obstacles, hunter and/or jumper classes without disqualification of horse. Show

management must verify shod horse is entered into a draft class and the steward must confirm that the

horse showed in draf harness class. If a shod horse does not show in a draft class, he will be disqualified.

Who's going to keep track of the horses that don't go into the draft classes? And soon it will be any miniature can be shod!! Well, it's showing shetland also so it's going to be shod. Well, it's just slightly improving his action so it's going to be shod. His hooves are dry so he's going to be shod. This MUST not be allowed to pass - it's opening up a whole can of trouble.

The current AMHR rule allows for Draft Miniatures to be shown shod. See page 265 letter F of the rulebook. The proposed rule change would add limitations on the shoeing because currently you can have pads or calks and it would allow those animals that are shown in draft driving to also compete in the in hand classes of hunter, jumper or obstacle where shoeing would have no bearing on their placing in those classes (example added action in obstacle in hand is not going to help you win the class). As the rule is now, your shod draft mini can only be shown in draft driving.

 

[Karen S]

I can't tell if this rule is replacing what is in the rulebook as an addition....

If it's replacing what is there, then the way I read it they just opened up that the shod draft horse CAN show in a halter class, when now they can't. Need some clarification on this rule and since the author wasn't made known we can't ask them why. Because of this then I would have to vote no.

Karen

 

[hobbyhorse23]

Wow, I think I need to go read the proposals. There seem to be some interesting ones!

I wouldn't disagree with allowing a limited sight horse in halter/halter performance classes, but would object to having a partially blind horse in a driving class.

I've been around a couple of driving horses who were blind in one eye and they didn't seem to have any problems. After all, they've already been taught not to worry about sounds they can't see the cause of as part of their basic driving training! We partially blind our fully-sighted horses every single time we harness them up.

I'd worry about jumping a partially blind horse but frankly if they prove they can do it, I think they should be allowed to. It's dumb to say a horse can't be shown because of an injury.

I completely am against this one:
G.A draft harness classes may be shown with light plate shoes. Side and/or toe clips allowed. Shoes may

be affixed with nails or glue. No pads, caulks, or other traction devices allowed. A shod horse may enter

halter obstacle, driving obstacles, hunter and/or jumper classes without disqualification of horse. Show

management must verify shod horse is entered into a draft class and the steward must confirm that the

horse showed in draf harness class. If a shod horse does not show in a draft class, he will be disqualified.

Who's going to keep track of the horses that don't go into the draft classes? And soon it will be any miniature can be shod!! Well, it's showing shetland also so it's going to be shod. Well, it's just slightly improving his action so it's going to be shod. His hooves are dry so he's going to be shod. This MUST not be allowed to pass - it's opening up a whole can of trouble.

I would have to vote no as I wouldn't want an AMHR shod draft horse in my halter class.

Just curious, but what's wrong with minis being allowed to wear light plate shoes? I'd be vehemently against allowing stacks or any other kind of "enhancing" shoe, but as someone who competes in combined driving it's really frustrating that I can't put any kind of shoe on my guy for traction like the big guys wear and still show AMHR. If I'm willing to take the hit on him measuring a little taller and can find a farrier to put teeny tiny shoes on him, then that's my business isn't it?

Big horses are shod for dry or cracking hooves and other conditions all the time. It's to help them be more comfortable! We already do insane things to our minis' unshod feet trying to get fancy angles the foot can't support, shoes might actually be kinder.

Leia

 

[Lmequine]

Here is some more clarification from the current rule in our rulebook concerning shoeing miniatures: page 245 and 246: "No shod horses are allowed on the grounds of an AMHR show..." meaning they are not only banned for showing in any classes but are banned from even being on the show grounds. Now under that rule there are exceptions listed including "a. Draft harness class may be shown with light plate shoes or draft type shoes with toe and heel caulks." and "c. Roman chariot event class may be shown with light plate shoes".

The proposed rule change will limit the shoes for draft miniatures to a plate with no heel or toe caulks and no pads. It will also allow those horses that were shown in the draft driving to also participate in obstacle, hunter and jumper in hand. They would still be banned from halter, color, showmanship, other driving classes (which I do not think they are currently allowed to cross enter anyway). I do know a lady here in Area V that shows a four up hitch in draft driving at the shows (she also shows in two ups and single hitch draft driving). Her minis are also trained for obstacle and jumping but she cannot show them in those classes when they are shod. I do not see why this rule should not be passed. There is no advantage for a shod miniature in the in hand performance classes and if it increased the number of entries at a few shows then that would be a benefit.

As far as shoeing miniatures in general. My husband is a farrier and he has shod some miniatures that are driven a lot down the road either for pleasure or parades or for income (as in carriage rides in cities). One little mare in particular would have her shoes worn in HALF at the end of 6 weeks. There is no way she could have been driven barefoot as she would have worn all of her hoof away.