Big-Moving Minis Must Go ...

[Field-of-Dreams]

Could you imagine having to split a driving class into thirds? 100 entries?

It's been done. I think it was Nationals or Worlds a few years ago- there were 69 horses and they split it into three heats.... Yowzers!

 

[muffntuf]

Yeah but we are talking potentially 100 horses. 69 is hard to keep track of -- but 100?

 

[JWC sr.]

Wouldn't that be a wonderful problem to have. 100 horses in any class means to me we would be doing something right. LOL

Split it into 4 goes if need be and then go back with the top 16 or so.

 

[susanne]

I suppose this belongs in a separate topic, but I'd like to echo Stormy's and JMS's suggestions of offering driven dressage and/or reinsmanship at Nationals. Classes that reward the art of driving and the longterm progress of horse and driver.

The existing classes are great, but they're more about how the horse looks than how it drives.

I would much rather see these classes than additional divisions.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

You know what after it was discussed with me on Park Harness I really don't see the point in that class and I honestly don't know why AMHR come up with that. Now you can find some Park horses coming from the moderns, but they aren't miniatures.

Honestly like everyone has said and this has been brought up time and time again and for once I'll agree with it the shetlands coming into AMHR according to everyone else is evolution. This is what everyone wants then this is just what everyone is going to get. Adding a whole new division is not going to help, cause how are you going to still keep those horses out of the pleasure class? They are pleasure horses, their is nothing wrong with them, but yes your miniature is not going to beable to beat them thats why I see it in the future more shetlands will be showing and fewer miniatures, especially in the over divison.

 

[ruffian]

You know what after it was discussed with me on Park Harness I really don't see the point in that class and I honestly don't know why AMHR come up with that. Now you can find some Park horses coming from the moderns, but they aren't miniatures.

Honestly like everyone has said and this has been brought up time and time again and for once I'll agree with it the shetlands coming into AMHR according to everyone else is evolution. This is what everyone wants then this is just what everyone is going to get. Adding a whole new division is not going to help, cause how are you going to still keep those horses out of the pleasure class? They are pleasure horses, their is nothing wrong with them, but yes your miniature is not going to beable to beat them thats why I see it in the future more shetlands will be showing and fewer miniatures, especially in the over divison.

IMO This is NOT what everybody wants, but it IS what everybody is going to get.

You're right, the Modern shetland is going to bring in Park movement, but it will go in Pleasure, and the judges are going to place it, and the true miniature pleasure horse is going to disappear.

 

[Flying minis]

Just came into minis - but have a long time experience in Saddlebreds. Years ago, when I first got into Saddlebreds, there was the same debate ongoing. At the time, there were all the divisions there are now - Fine Harness, Pleasure Driving, Show Pleasure Driving, and Country Pleasure Driving. Each was progressively less judged on movement and more on manners as you went from Fine Harness to Country. I could easily take my horses into Country, they didn't have to have extreme action, they had to have good manners, and be good movers, but not extreme with headset or action. Lots of Saddlebreds showing, in all divisions. Then horses started moving down divisions as the breed "evolved". Some of the most talented movers ended up in Country - because they could still trot level with no weight, pads, etc (which weren't allowed in country). So what has happened now, years later? Country horses move level, the Show Pleasure division has all but disappeared, and the Pleasure and Fine Harness horses are essentially the same horses. And the number of horses at a show? Drastically reduced, because people like me, who used to be able to train, work, and show their own horses, can't compete. Saddlebreds started moving to dressage, driving, even hunter - and being used to breed Sport Horses.

I see AMHR at a crossroads right now - they can embrace ALL types of minis by setting a graduated set of classes with good definition of types for each class, and educating judges and exhibitors, or they can keep moving to more and more action, go the way of the Saddlebred, and lose many of the people who are showing now to other breeds or discipliness. Evolution is a natural progression - but you can choose the direction you evolve - evolution toward all high moving horses is not the only way to evolve. I especially see that with a breed that has limited performance options (no multiple styles such as in riding), ensuring that more people can compete in performance classes, rather than fewer, would seem to be the way to go.

 

[muffntuf]

Flying Minis you have some good points. I wouldn't want either the ASPC or the AMHR to evolve out of the show ring!

 

[Tam VanderWerf]

Ruffian's quote: You're right, the Modern shetland is going to bring in Park movement, but it will go in Pleasure, and the judges are going to place it, and the true miniature pleasure horse is going to disappear.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Then the country pleasure horse is going to disappear....then the western country pleasure horse.... when does it end? This is making us re-evaluate our breeding program and honestly we're quite disheartened.

Flying mini's quote: Evolution is a natural progression - but you can choose the direction you evolve - evolution toward all high moving horses is not the only way to evolve. I especially see that with a breed that has limited performance options (no multiple styles such as in riding), ensuring that more people can compete in performance classes, rather than fewer, would seem to be the way to go.

Well said.

 

[Minimor]

I don't think it's likely to be that drastic in AMHR, that so many people will leave Nationals to do other things. Miniatures aren't the big money game that Saddlebreds are--sure, Miniatures are getting to be more of a big money thing, with 'who you are' being more important now than it was a few years ago, but they are still a long way from what the Saddlebred world is. Morgans are the same--weighted shoes on pretty much everything, hunter pleasure horses included, it's been very difficult for the little people to keep up in that world for many years now, yet the World & Grand National show this year still has somewhere around 1100 entries--so there are still plenty of people that are in the game and willing to shell out big bucks to stay there (check out what it costs to show a Morgan at OKC sometime!)

Minis are still easier than those big horse breeds because there is no shoeing. That levels the playing field a whole bunch. If you've got a good horse with good movement and the judging is fair, not biased in favor of any big name trainers that may be showing against you, you still have a fair shot of winning. You are not at all limited because you don't have a farrier that can shoe your horse up or by the fact that you don't want to shoe your horse up in order to be competitive.

And yes, there are people trying to make their big moving horses bigger by using chains, elastics, maybe shackles? I don't know how many people are using shackles on Minis, if any--chains and elastics for sure. To whomever it was that commented on the awful practices used to try and "make" bigger movement--I'm not disagreeing with that at all. But, that doesn't really have anything to do with the big movers in pleasure classes problem. There are people using those same "enhancement devices" on not-so-big-moving Minis as well. Action devices are really a whole different topic. Putting big movers into their own class won't stop people from using chains and elastics--they will continue to use devices on the big movers and they will continue to use devices on the not so big movers. I have no use for action devices & don't use them. I have seen too many horses have their action ruined by these devices--and and in the breeds that are shod I really dislike seeing the horses that are overshod & just jerk their front feet up off the ground, with the canter being a gait where the front feet get jerked up and then flung out & up in front of the horse. That just looks SO bad.

 

[Flying minis]

I don't think it's likely to be that drastic in AMHR, that so many people will leave Nationals to do other things.

I don't know that you'll see so many lost at Nationals - as you said, other breed Nationals are still big too - but have you seen the drastic decline in entries, and the corresponding lack of shows, locally in those breeds? When you stop allowing different types of horses within the breed to be competitive, those types stop showing. I'm not as concerned about National shows - what about the local level? That's where your new folks come from (like me), and that's where they decide if they're going to stay involved or not.

On a side note, I don't think you can compare the movement of minis with big horses for one reason - shoes. I don't think you can expect the criteria for an unshod mini park harness (or pleasure driving) to be the same as that of a big horse who may be carrying weighted shoes, lead, and pads. Saying an unshod mini park harness should have the same movement as a big horse Park Harness? That right there limits the "suitable" Park Harness horses to the very few extreme natural movers.

 

[Minimor]

I don't know that you'll see so many lost at Nationals - as you said, other breed Nationals are still big too - but have you seen the drastic decline in entries, and the corresponding lack of shows, locally in those breeds? When you stop allowing different types of horses within the breed to be competitive, those types stop showing. I'm not as concerned about National shows - what about the local level? That's where your new folks come from (like me), and that's where they decide if they're going to stay involved or not.
On a side note, I don't think you can compare the movement of minis with big horses for one reason - shoes. I don't think you can expect the criteria for an unshod mini park harness (or pleasure driving) to be the same as that of a big horse who may be carrying weighted shoes, lead, and pads. Saying an unshod mini park harness should have the same movement as a big horse Park Harness? That right there limits the "suitable" Park Harness horses to the very few extreme natural movers.

Our provincial Morgan show has fizzled out, but that is in all honestly nothing at all to do with shoeing or horses showing in the wrong divisions--we didn't have the high powered horses nor the big money people showing here. We were all "little people" having fun with our Morgans. Entries gradually fizzled out as families with kids quit showing after those kids grew up and left home & left horses behind completely. Other people retired from breeding and showing and the few that were left weren't enough to keep any show going. I don't think there were ever complaints here about our local shows having horses that were showing out of their division!! Out west where there are a lot more Morgans and there is a lot more money overall the Morgan shows are still going strong. Saddlebreds...never did have a presence here. Arabians were very big here, with two very big shows. Those are gone, primarily because it got to the point where they couldn't get anyone to run them. With no local shows, people got out of the breed.

I'm not sure who expects the unshod Minis to move like shod up big horses. I don't. But I do know which unshod big horses I would consider to be suitable for Park and which ones I would classify as pleasure or country pleasure, and I apply that unshod "standard" to the small equine as well. Definitely the number of Minis that qualify as Park is extremely small. At this point in time I would say that it is limited to the very few Modern Shetlands that have been small enough to measure into AMHR, and maybe not even all of those.

 

[horsefeather]

Flying Minis....I SO agree with you!! You may not have been in minis very long, but you sure have a handle on what's happening.

Unfortunately, there are few of us that feel that way. I have never seen the amount of farms selling out like last year and this year. They certainly aren't being replaced as fast as they are leaving!

I can see it happening already, but those with the rose colored glasses on either can't see or don't want to see. I see 2 or 3 shows a year dying out over the country. And it's NOT about sour grapes. But when you work so hard and have a nice horse then go to a show and have the 'big movers' in your class, you already know you aren't going to win. And, even if winning isn't everything, you sure need some to get your horse Hall of Famed. We have several driving horses, used to have a Pleasure horse, but retired him because he can't compete with what's winning now. Can't afford to just take horses to a show to fill classes. Way too expensive. I'm not saying we want or even expect to win everytime, but, as I said, you do need a few wins. And, as I've said many, many times, cruel or not, I won't do all that stuff to my horse to make him win. If no one else did, it would make it a better playing field. But, we know that won't happen, don't we.

We aren't breeding anymore and certainly can't afford to purchase the kind of horse that's winning in Pleasure now (nor would I want to), after all Social Security only goes so far, and that distance is getting shorter and shorter.

JMO

Pam

 

[Mominis]

I guess I'm having trouble seeing what you guys are talking about. Can anyone post a photo of a horse who, in your opinion is an ideal Single Pleasure horse and possibly one that you would call park? My Saddlebred/Morgan/Arab history must be clouding my judgement and I really would like to see what you mean exatcly, just to educate my eye.

 

[midnight star stables]

I know park harness allows both viceroy carts and 2-wheel carts; however, it is very uncommon to see a 2-wheeled cart used. Now IMO, it does take away from the whole picture, but to be honest, if I had a horse with movement that could go pleasure or park, I would still enter the park class, as having a park harness horse is a personal goal. Park classes also ONLY offer open and stake classes. I think offering the extra classes, such as ladies, youth, amateur and gentlemen driving, are also important.

I think that the rules about Park should be changed. I think that the class should push the use of 2-wheel carts over that of viceroy. Why? Because that is the only real difference in the class. I know I wouldn't be able to bring both a viceroy and my grabber to every show, as I just don't have the room. I know I am not the only one. I know that I always show my driving horses in either a ladies class or a amateur class as well as open and stakes. Park harness classes don't allow for this.

I think if you changed the name and the vehicle, and gave the class as much "glory" as the current Single Pleasure driving class, you may have more entries. Name it something like "Modern Pleasure Driving, or Extreme Pleasure Driving" so that it still sounds like one of the "normal" driving classes we offer, and do away with the "Park" class. I think this class should be more open then the current park class. Maybe incentives should be offered to enter this class. Maybe money, or year end awards, or an article in the Journal covering the class and maybe a write-up in the Journal of the top 10 all star horses(and their farm) in that class of that year. I think that if we support the improved "Park" class, there might be happier members all round? You'll give the "big-movers" their own class, and a reason to be there. Hype up the glory for the class, and make it something impressive - not a "joke".

I am NOT for adding another class, but I would support CHANGING our current class.

I think that there are some flaws with the current "Park" class, and changes may help. I am hoping that in the next 5 to 10 years, I will showing in Park harness; no matter what it is like then. I will do my part to support the class.

 

[hobbyhorse23]

There have been a lot of replies to this topic so I'm just going to list a few small comments below rather than a big reply of my own.

Maybe we should institute a rule that states whatever driving classes you compete in during the show season is what you have show in at Nationals. For example by June 30 (allowing you time to figure out where your horse fits) you should have to pick your driving class and stick with it for the rest of the show season or at the very least you would have to follow through and show in those driving classes at Nationals. So if you show Country Pleasure you compete in Country Pleasure at Nationals. Same goes for Pleasure.

Love it!! I understand that horses who can compete locally in one division might not be "fancy enough" to compete in that division at Nationals but making a rule like that might do an awful lot to produce classes full of horses who honestly belong in that division. If Single Pleasure horses can't just drop down to Country and Country to Western...well, guess what? The real Country and Western horses would be left to win those classes! And enforcing clear specifications for each class would ensure that a fancier mover would find no benefit in dropping down to Country or Western early as the judges would not reward a non-appropriate entry.

Its called Reinsmanship....If those who don't know its basiclly like a showmanship class only for driving, you also have to perform certain maneurvers off and/or on the rail.

I love Reinsmanship but don't see how it's like Showmanship.

It's not on the ground, it's not about the cleanliness or presentation of the horse, it doesn't necessarily include a set pattern...Reinsmanship is the equivalent of ridden Equitation or Horsemanship classes where it is judged on the rider's skill and form.

I dont believe that enchancing a driving horse's movement is any more cruel than tying a halter horse's head up high to develop his neck or withholding water from halter horses so they will be tucked up for a class.

Please tell me you are joking. Those things ARE cruel, and have been denounced for years! I can't even find words to express my dismay that anyone would think, anatomically speaking, that tying up a halter horse's head would somehow develop proper neck muscles.

Good lord. I agree whole-heartedly with the rest of your post but this paragraph made me literally sick to my stomach.

You know what after it was discussed with me on Park Harness I really don't see the point in that class and I honestly don't know why AMHR come up with that. Now you can find some Park horses coming from the moderns, but they aren't miniatures.

Is it just me or isn't any ASPC or AMHA horse under 38" eligible for registration with AMHR and therefore a "miniature horse" by default? Despite closing the books we are not yet a BREED. Bloodlines do not matter. Only size and eligibility matter, and therefore, like it or not, an undersized Modern Shetland is every bit as much a miniature horse as one from 30 years of AMHA breeding. That's just the way it is! I am one who prefers a different type of mover in my own barn and want to see there remain a place for that sort of horse, but see below for a further discussion of doing that.

Just came into minis - but have a long time experience in Saddlebreds. Years ago, ... And the number of horses at a show? Drastically reduced, because people like me, who used to be able to train, work, and show their own horses, can't compete. Saddlebreds started moving to dressage, driving, even hunter - and being used to breed Sport Horses.
I see AMHR at a crossroads right now - they can embrace ALL types of minis by setting a graduated set of classes with good definition of types for each class, and educating judges and exhibitors, or they can keep moving to more and more action, go the way of the Saddlebred, and lose many of the people who are showing now to other breeds or discipliness. Evolution is a natural progression - but you can choose the direction you evolve - evolution toward all high moving horses is not the only way to evolve. I especially see that with a breed that has limited performance options (no multiple styles such as in riding), ensuring that more people can compete in performance classes, rather than fewer, would seem to be the way to go.

Here, here!! Excellent post and I agree 100%. Minis have already started doing that by moving to the American Driving Society instead of the registry shows and that is a trend I only see growing in the next few years. It has always struck me that in a breed that claims to be at true miniature, there should be room for ALL types just as there are in the full-sized breeds. Stock type, hunter type, fine harness type...all should be welcomed if you wish the breed to continue to grow in a healthy, sustainable direction.

I don't know that you'll see so many lost at Nationals - as you said, other breed Nationals are still big too - but have you seen the drastic decline in entries, and the corresponding lack of shows, locally in those breeds? When you stop allowing different types of horses within the breed to be competitive, those types stop showing. I'm not as concerned about National shows - what about the local level? That's where your new folks come from (like me), and that's where they decide if they're going to stay involved or not.

And this is why I would not agree with adding yet another class for high moving horses. That is what Single Pleasure is supposed to be and the fact that there are better and better movers in that class is what we're supposed to be breeding for! The fact it takes Shetland blood to get that a lot of times is not really relevant to the overall picture. The end result is they're moving more like the class description requires and lower moving horses aren't going to beat higher movers in a class that is judged on high action.

I too do not want to see good-quality performance horses forced out of the ring but think diversifying the types of driving supported would be a far more effective route for continued entries than simply adding yet another high action class. Pinto makes it work, the ADS makes it work, and maybe we should too.

Leia

 

[Minimor]

If Single Pleasure horses can't just drop down to Country and Country to Western...well, guess what? The real Country and Western horses would be left to win those classes!

Not necessarily--what such a rule might do is cause people to look at where they will want to show their horse at Nationals & then will show their horse in that division all summer. So, instead of showing in Pleasure at the local shows and dropping into CP for Nationals, that horse will just show CP all year. Personally that is what I would do--I figure if the horse is one thing for Nationals then it is the same thing otherwise, and I would show it that way all the time. I would anyway, rule or no rule--people should go by what the horse is, not by what his competition is.

 

[susanne]

While it won't solve everything, I believe AMHR and AMHA need to more clearly define each division and give the judges a clearer definition of what they should look for. To say that there is no such thing as too much action in Pleasure is ridiculous, and distorts the scope of the class. A Park Harness horse entered in Pleasure should be penalized.

If each class is strict about what is expected, we won't have the "big movers" in with the more traditional Pleasure horses.

Same with Country -- a Pleasure horse (or other unsuitable type) entered in country should be penalized.

This idea of "moving up" or "dropping down" suggests that Pleasure is better than Country, which then is better than Western Country. That is pure BS. It also implies that the registries prize the high stepping and fancy movement over, say, a beautiful long, low movement.

Each division is different, but not better, than any other. Giving each class its own clear goals and not encouraging the idea of "dropping down" will help direct the breed's evolution.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I love Reinsmanship but don't see how it's like Showmanship.

It's not on the ground, it's not about the cleanliness or presentation of the horse, it doesn't necessarily include a set pattern...Reinsmanship is the equivalent of ridden Equitation or Horsemanship classes where it is judged on the rider's skill and form.

Is it just me or isn't any ASPC or AMHA horse under 38" eligible for registration with AMHR and therefore a "miniature horse" by default? Despite closing the books we are not yet a BREED. Bloodlines do not matter. Only size and eligibility matter, and therefore, like it or not, an undersized Modern Shetland is every bit as much a miniature horse as one from 30 years of AMHA breeding. That's just the way it is! I am one who prefers a different type of mover in my own barn and want to see there remain a place for that sort of horse, but see below for a further discussion of doing that.

I still think Reinsmanship is like showmanship because isn't showmanship judged on the handlers skill and ability, I also believe its judged on how well the horse is presented.

You are right miniatures are just a height registry, like I've said no better then a color registry IMO. Any horse or pony under 38" can be a miniature. However when they added Park class how many modern shetlands were showing then? Again the route taking by AMHR is going towards ASPC ponies, no longer are they picking your ideal miniature horse.

So why do we need another division for the ASPC ponies when its becoming clear that thats the route is going. Adding a division won't solve anything. First you need to rewrite the rules on the driving classes and then if so needed then add your division.

As far as country horses going into western and winning if our judges are responsible enough they won't let that happen. Our western rules are as detailed as you are going to get. Unfortunatly your average country horse may not win at Nationals, so be it. Thats why we have 60+ entries every year at Nationals.

 

[Sandee]

For those that want to see what a Park Harness horse looks like just go to facebook and check out Jason Prince's photos of "Beaver" aka RFP Timed to Perfection. He doesn't have up the 2010 National Photos yet but there is one of '08 Nationals where Beav took second. This year this stallion won the Modern Harness Stakes at Congress and the Park Harness Stakes at Nationals. "Beav" belongs to Amy and Melissa Roberts so I can't post the picture here. I saw him drive a Nationals and the boy breaks at or above level. One NICE horse!