Although I was an AMHR member for many years, I am not, this year-as I am no longer showing, breeding, registering horses(and all but two of mine here are A and R registered, one is a R-only, B in size.) I am a longtime Lifetime member of A. I no longer pay for either magazine(have seen all of the slick ads I EVER wish to see...) though I have YEARS of them, complete.
This being the case, I have no status in R to protest this 'officially'. I am saddened, but not at ALL surprised, to have verification, though the observations of Kay, Fran, and others, that the SAME THING is happening over in R as is, and has been for several years, going on in A-my gut feeling was that this was so-and I have to wonder if it hasn't 'moved' somewhat more over to R because new rules have made it a 'bit' harder in A to do *some* of the things that had once been done to cheat on a horse's height? (AMHA has had a 'no-touching once set up properly' rule in place for several years now, and although I believe it has helped in some ways, it certainly has not eliminated all of the problems!)
It is absolutely UNCONSCIENABLE that anyone should be caused to fear protesting! We have the example of last year's occurance at A World, though, as an example of how badly some people can and will behave-and this, openly---I hate to try to imagine what some *might* do in secret.
There certainly are no simple answers, in either registry. I do agree with the power of the many, and in making serious contact, IN WRITING-and yes, keep a copy!-with your Directors, Officers, and other Officials, to protest these practices--AND, keep doing so! (Direct-knowledge-based is of course best; but I personally believe it is also acceptable to speak from strong personal conviction.) Go to shows with close observation of adherance to their Rulebook in mind--and document, whenever possible. Press for changes, such as a change to top-of-the-wither measurement(to be 'in step with' the entire remainder of the equine world, for Pete's sake!)INSIST-politely, but relentlessly...! It is very true that talking about it here won't change ANYTHING-but I strongly feel that this, as the most widely-particiated-in Forum for Miniature horses, IS the most accessible place for frank discussion and the exchange of ideas. BUT YES, talk MUST translate into action, or it is pointless. I have to say that I have been as 'guilty' as anyone of NOT following up-last year, I was sent a proposed letter to send to AMHA, after the debacle at World-the person sending it had not the time to go forward with it, wished for me to--with all due respect, I found it so 'tippy toe-y' in tone that I just couldn't see putting my name on it--and it fell through the cracks of my life. You can believe me when I say that I will not let that happen again.
Although I was not there at R National '06, I HAVE BEEN at several A Nationals(now World), and I HAVE SEEN what is happening, with my own eyes(and, believe me,it is NOT just at the national level). My observation is that indeed, some horses are measured quite correctly, and some are not; in my observation, it is likely that horses that CLEARLY are smaller will be measured with actual and reasonable accuracy. It appeared that those who 'measured out' tended to belong to newbies or 'small potatoes' exhibitors-to make things look 'good', there has to be some of those. However, it was NOT 'just' the trainers/big name/money owners or exhibitors whose horses were 'accomodated...though in several previous years, that DID seem to be the case, I firmly believe that it was realized that when ONLY the 'big names' were 'accomodated', others were more upset- so, to 'head off' genuine upheaval, many were 'measured short', as a matter of course--after all, how many complain that their horse is 'TOO SHORT'? Marks were made on horses I saw; the mark was well BELOW the 'last hair of the mane' -which I am very good at determining. Videotaping the measurement, as I saw it being done, is IMO worthless; the only way it *might* be of any real use would be if a camera looked straight down from above onto the measurement-AND, no part of the measurer or anyone else's body blocked ANY of the procedure--and that is not going to happen. My point? That there are,unfortunately, 'ways and ways' in which this 'fudging'(to use a polite term)can and does happen, and from everyone involved. It is my opinion that the 'powers-that-be', in either organization,for the most part would rather NOT even be told about these kinds of issues, because they do NOT want to 'have to' deal with them(and honestly, it is also my opinion that this is pretty much the case in every horse breed organization that I have any knowledge of....)! Who wants to try to do a job PRECISELY according to the rules when there is not the support at the 'management' level-and when doing so may well mean you are subjected to all kinds of abuse? (I realize there are those who pride themselves on being tough and willing to stand up to this kind of thing-and Kudos to them-but such things are unquestionably stressful, and very hard to take, for many. Heck, I am a tough old bird, too-but at this point, life is simply too short and too precious to have to put up with nasty people, so I am unlikely to be signing on to do so....)!
I absolutely think that A has been HURT by some of what has gone on in recent years. It made me ILL to hear that some cheat was able to profit financially off of THE MEMBERS because the BOD didn't follow procedure---anyone know, was this information published in 'OUR' breed magazine? I think that the issues with following the rules of measurement,especially at the World show level, have and are, hurting, as well as things like financial ineptitude and mismanagement, and harder-to-define issues like attitude towards 'ordinary' members. I foresee these same kinds of problems, regarding measuring at least, for R-it appears, in fact, that the problems have already arrived there!
I agree with other excellent points made here-as in those regarding turning these from 'height' registries into 'genuine' breeds. I will keep my opinions on ASPC/AMHR for a different thread; as Kay noted, that is not what this one is about. I will note, though, that in my (admittedly old-1990)copy of the AHSA(now USEF, I believe) Rulebook, there is indeed a Shetland division--and, I'm betting, ASPC is still a part? Anyone know, for sure? If it is, then to me, this would bring up some interesting points about jurisdiction? I used to resist the idea of 'having to' be under the auspices of (now) USEF-there are numerous fees(or were; I haven't paid attention in quite a while...),including a non-member fee-that is, if YOU, the exhibitor, aren't a member of (now)USEF, and wish to show at a sanctioned show, YOU had to pay that fee--basically, IMO, a method to 'force' everyone to pay a membership to USEF(old AHSA). I resented that--but, in today's world, it may indeed be the 'best' answer to many of these problems, in both the miniature horse registries. Although it sometimes seems to take them a good while(thinking of some of the suspensions of trainers for certain unconscienable practices, and of the sorry Ba***ards who participated in killing horses for the insurance, to name a couple of which I am aware)....USEF at least seems willing,and able, to enforce rules,and impose penalties!
Margo
