How many are interested in a legal AMHA over sized division

[shelia]

I am for it, but I fear it may be too late. Oversized horses have been used for years to further refine miniatures and to get them where they are today. Somewhere along the line it has been decided that we no longer need them so they are being eliminated. It is obvious at the shows that people are trying to squeeze them in and show them. They are apparently excellant quaility because they are winning. None of us want to compete with them. Many people want them gone from the registry and to never produce anything that can be registared AMHA. I think we could go so much further with minis. We strive for perfection but slam the door on the possibilties.

On the other hand, it makes those few descendants worth a lot of money! Much more than I can ever afford! It will be many years before those horses reproduce enough for me to ever own one. This does keep the average breeder from having much if anything of that quality.

Once we reach that goal then we come upon that door that has been slammed shut. Where do we go from there?

 

[crponies]

Just wanted to throw this out there, but I remember reading about AQHA having issues with not allowing certain horses to be registered that had 2 AQHA parents. I forget if the issue was too much white/double dilute or embryo transfer. Whatever it was, they ended up being faced with a lawsuit and had to register any horse as AQHA if both parents were AQHA. I am not a member of any registry, but IMO any horse with two AMHA parents should be eligible for AMHA registration. They may not be eligible for show but I think they should be eligible for registration. I would hate AMHA to face a lawsuit over this but there is precident for it.

 

[maestoso]

Lisa F, there is nothing wrong with showing in AMHR if you have an over horse. But I ask you this..... What is wrong with a 33" horse being registered with AMHA, who had a 36" dam that was once amha registered but lost her papers because of height ONLY? Don't say "just hardship it" because that soon won't be an option anyway and it is way too expensive. This would not in any way be hurting the breed, in fact, it would be allowing some really awesome horses to keep their papers, and help better the breed, by producing really awesome horses.

On a side note, in my opinion, you can eliminate hardshipping all you want, we will NEVER be a breed registry. Just listen to the name "Miniature" horse. The name itself implies size. We are not called "Miniature Arabians" or "Miniature Morgans" or anything else. Simply "Miniature Horse". We are a height registry, and will always be a height registry. Look at the way we separate show classes, COMPLETELY by height, sex, and color, but more by height than anything else. Morgan is a breed registry, and you don't see them showing in certain classes based on height, same with arab, friesian, whatever. Everything involved with the miniature horse is based on height, how could we possibly be anything more than a height registry? Besides that, there is nothing wrong with being a height registry. I have mixed feelings on eliminating hardshipping, but I don't think it has anything to do with being classified as height or breed. Yes it might make us more like other breed registries, in that they don't allow hardshipping, but we have so many other differences it is impossible to be a breed. When is the last time you saw an appy registered with the Jockey Club? How many palominos are registered with the Friesian registry? Besides that, with all this fuss about keeping AMHA 34" and under, do you research and tell me how many breeds you find with height restrictions...

We are and forever will be, a height registry.

 

[Sun Runner Stables]

Others have said it best- but yes, I think an over divison/breeding stock would be a great idea! Good topic!

 

[OhHorsePee]

I only have one mini that is AMHA/AMHR. The rest are AMHR, AMHR/ASPC. Since I only have one in the AMHA registry I have stayed out of the topics that have been raised lately to be fair. I do, however, have feelings about this that really stay with me. I know there is quite a few AMHA registered/registerable foals by heritage that go over the 34. Some from well known stallions. I really feel bad that these foals lose their heritage and are made into a grade mini just because they go over the 34" mark. To me this speaks volumes of things wrong that we all care about. What happens to these minis when they lose their papers? Yes, I do wish AMHA would have an over division. I do believe this would be a positive move for them to keep the heritage of those that go over. That would keep breeders honest and not afraid to say what size their horses really are. This would generate more monies for AMHA which I hear they need. And also, just maybe, some of us that love the over division size horses would show in AMHA, therefore also generating even more monies for the registry.

Fran

 

[Lewella]

Just wanted to throw this out there, but I remember reading about AQHA having issues with not allowing certain horses to be registered that had 2 AQHA parents. I forget if the issue was too much white/double dilute or embryo transfer. Whatever it was, they ended up being faced with a lawsuit and had to register any horse as AQHA if both parents were AQHA. I am not a member of any registry, but IMO any horse with two AMHA parents should be eligible for AMHA registration. They may not be eligible for show but I think they should be eligible for registration. I would hate AMHA to face a lawsuit over this but there is precident for it.

Yes, the Texas courts decided that AQHA x AQHA = AQHA. The lawsuit was over embryo transfers and registring multiple foals per year from a mare. When AQHA lost the ET lawsuit the writing was on the wall and it was understood that if another suit was filed over the white rule that AQHA would lose so they recinded the white rule (the double dilute rule had already been recinded prior to the conclusion of the ET lawsuit if I remember correctly). If AMHA closes and becomes a real breed they will likely have no legal option but to accept any horse of any height that is the result of AMHA x AMHA.

 

[ontherisefarm]

If AMHA is wanting to be a breed instead of a height registry they may have no other choice than to bring back an over division whether it be breedingstock or whatever. It can be worked just like the color registries where if it is over it must be bred to an under to have registerable offspring to keep the size down if possible. The color registries require solids or breedingstock to be bred to colored or regular registry horses.

BUT if AMHA stays as a height registry then I think hardshipping should still be allowed.. Just my opinion...

 

[minimomNC]

And with a breeding stock only division, that will be a place for the mares and stallions, but what would you allow for the geldings? I feel this would lead to even more stallions which the industry just doesn't need, being used for breeding just because they are oversize and listed as breeding stock. Just because it can reproduce, doesn't make it breeding stock. As for a lawsuit, AMHA is based on a height not bloodlines. You can hardship any horse that meets their size requirments even if it doesn't have a pedigree, so that wouldn't fly here.

Another thing is where do you stop with the oversize? 36" 38" 40"? when will an oversize horses cease to be a miniature horse. And once you set the height, what will you do when the pastures are then full of horses 2" or taller than the top height? When will enough be enough. We can't seem to keep over 34" horses from being used now. How will we as an association be better prepared to handle it if you raise the height.

 

[Bailey@SmallWonders]

I personally would be against it - I think AMHA was founded on 34" and under horses and it should stay that way.
I love AMHA and AMHR horses and I own both, so I still say we have a place for each of our miniature horses to be registered. Whether they are show horses or breeding horses - the rules should stay the same for both.

If you want to show or breed a 34.5" horse or taller - What is WRONG with AMHR? I hope I don't get flamed for asking that question, but I have wanted to ask that for a long time.

I, personally, would not be interested in an "over" division. I would also not be interested in a "breeding Stock" division either.
The goal of AMHA is to breed the smallest most correct horse. If you continue to use horses that are on the "taller" side, that "tall" gene will continue to pop up. The only way to get closer to the goal of the smallest horse would be to "breed out" the taller gene. This will not happen in 10, 20 years. It will take centuries. The longer we keep breeding oversized horses we are only perpetuating the chance of getting taller horses. I feel that is what AMHR is there for. Just about every horse I have is AMHA/AMHR. If they go over they have a place to go. I don't think one organization is more elite than the other. A beautiful horse is a beautiful horse no matter how it is registered.

Just my own personal opinion.

I completely agree with both of these posts.

 

[McBunz]

This is a quote from R3 and the reason I posted this thread.. She makes some very valid points..

There are benefits to allowing 'oversize' horses to be kept in the gene pool. Maybe not with 'regular' AMHA papers, but at least with some documentation and the ability to have 'regular' AMHA offspring, if the foals stay within the AMHA 'Standard of Perfection'.

One of the benefits, is INCREASING the integrity of the organization as a whole. If a person could admit that their horse is over 34", and not lose it from the legal gene pool, then people would be more likely to tell people how tall the horse reallly is. That would be better for buyers than what happens when a horse is oversize, but the papers are not turned in, and they continue to breed it. The buyer of the foal does not know how tall the parent really are. At least if the oversize horse had some form of AMHA papers, buyers would KNOW how tall the parents are.

I do not advocate the showing of 'oversize' horses. The Standard of Perfection would be the same. I don't think that a 'breeding stock' or some other division necessarily means that AMHA is changing the Standard. They would just be acknowleding the pedigree of 'pure-bred' AMHA horses in this special division.

Maybe some people don't realize it, but with dogs, there are Standards for the height of each breed, and if a dog does not meet the Standard, it is disqualified for showing. BUT, it does not lose it registration, it is just not eligible to show. The 'breeding stock' (or whatever a person wanted to call it) Division, would be similar, but even more distinct than with dogs, as the horse would lose its 'regular' papers, but still allowed to produce registered foals. To be eligible for the special division, the horses would have to be the offspring of two registered parents, but if they didn't meet the Standard, could not show. With proper selection of a mate, these horses could still produce foals that met the Standard.

The other thing that needs to be considered, is that at some time, we are wanting the Miniature Horse to be more than just a 'height' registry. We are hoping to move toward it becoming a 'breed'. The first step is being taken as it has been voted on to do away with Hardshipping horses in the future. That means we will no longer be admitting horses with unknown pedigrees into the registry. But, unlike with dogs, once we establish ourselves as a 'breed', are we going to 'throw away' a 'purebred' animal? Or, will we be like the dog breeds that recognize all the offspring of two registered parents? I don't believe that height is a genetic 'flaw' that should disqualify an animal's birthright once the registry is closed and we become a breed.

The other benefit is monetary. But, I even hate to say that, as some people will get 'negative' because they think that making money, or even the consideration of a financial benefit is 'bad'. But, all organizations need to make money to cover their expenses so they can continue to offer their services to the members. Right now, when a horse goes over 34", the horse is 'lost' to AMHA. It will (should) never be brought permanent, so no more fees will be collected from that horse. It is denied the right to have any registered offspring, so there will never be any income generated from the registration of those foals. Therefore, having a separate Division for the over 34" horses would be a financial benefit to AMHA.

I just thought I add all of this to what Matt has been trying to say. I do understand where he is coming from.

--------------------

Quality Horses at Family Prices

SW Oklahoma (Fletcher)

R3 Minis Home Page

 

[hairicane]

I posted this on another thread and just copied it to here . I say YES to an AMHA over 34" division.

"As someone already stated -- the show officials and judges keep letting obviously oversized horses show and win at sanctioned shows. If the show ring is supposed to be the place where the minis quality and value is assessed I would say the message clearly is "Cheat if u have enough influence/power/money to get away with it"

For the record I think AMHA SHOULD have a division for over 34" horses. Losing their reg. papers sets the poor horse up for a miserable life. I have many 34 inch minis that when bred to another 34" mini only produce foals that top out at 31" or much less. Im AMHR you see many B sized minis produce tiny foals. And it works the other way too. Sometimes 2 tiny minis produce a big honkin foal. Thats just genetics."

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I think allowing all the horses that grew over 34" still beable to keep their papers and allow to keep on breeding for AMHA foals. However, I feel like if they are over 34" no show. The standard is to breed for the smallest correct miniature under 34". However like it has been said if AMHA wants to become a breed then having those horses that have gone over 34" allow to keep their papers.

 

[Minimor]

I am curious. Those who say that oversize AMHA horses can be registered AMHR--what will be your position on oversize horses in the event that some day AMHR closes its registry to AMHA horses? Suppose there was no more obtaining AMHR registration based on AMHA papers?

Currently your oversize A horse has value as an AMHR over division horse. Such would not be the case if R were to close its books to AMHA. It probably won't happen, but let's say it did. Would you then want to have your oversize AMHA horse keep its papers so that it would have more worth than it would as a grade?

As someone else said earlier on one of these threads, AMHA and its oversized horses is very good for AMHR business .

 

[RockRiverTiff]

I am curious. Those who say that oversize AMHA horses can be registered AMHR--what will be your position on oversize horses in the event that some day AMHR closes its registry to AMHA horses? Suppose there was no more obtaining AMHR registration based on AMHA papers?
Currently your oversize A horse has value as an AMHR over division horse. Such would not be the case if R were to close its books to AMHA. It probably won't happen, but let's say it did. Would you then want to have your oversize AMHA horse keep its papers so that it would have more worth than it would as a grade?

Still wouldn't want an oversize division. Suppose we did have an oversize division, and two of those breeding stock horses then produced a foal too tall for even the oversize division--it will happen the same way it already happens to 34" and under stock--do we then start worrying about what to do with those foals? In my opinion, our constant drive to defend the right to breed every animal outside the standard is destroying our pet market as it is. Take a look at the going price on an already registered A/R pet quality colt--a couple hundred dollars at best. At auction, that same animal would be lucky to get a single bid. Now we want to find a way to bring even more horses into that market?

As I stated earlier, if AMHA made the effort to become a breed, then a breeding stock designation for AMHA-bred horses over 34" would be an obvious step. Otherwise as a height registry I still don't see the purpose of this division. These horses have violated what is to me the single defining characteristic of an AMHA horse. We aren't losing their bloodline--their AMHA parents continue to produce, as will all siblings that remain within the standard--so why in an already flooded market are we so insistant that these animals must also be bred?

Just wanted to add in here that all questions are rhetorical--I respect and understand the point that many are trying to make and am not singling out anyone in particular. If a breeding stock division was created, would those in favor of it also be in favor of a mandatory evaluation of these animals to ensure that they are indeed beneficial to the gene pool?

 

[LaVern]

As some of you may know. I am a very avid promoter of the High Bred -Full Blooded American Miniature horse (the B horse with all miniature blood lines that go back for many generations). But, I am also a very strong supporter of AMHA because of the DNA and Parent Qualifying aspect.

For so many years I used to hope that AMHA would create an over division, but looking back I think those of us who went the taller route were very lucky that there was not one.

We have been able to improve with the best horses and blood lines that AMHA threw away.

The stallions we were able purchase and use were some of the top. We were able to be very picky. If they weren’t the best they were gelded. Even today when you watch the B Gelding classes it almost makes you cry over the beauty of some of them.

The mares that we saved or purchased for broodmares were ones we just loved to look at. They weren’t worth much then.

Also, where would I have dumped those 30 inch, straight shouldered, no neck little ones if I hadn’t been able to hardship them into AMHA. They sold like hot cakes as soon as they had the AMHA-- no pedigree papers. I am sure they really helped the gene pool.

So I say, " thank you", to AMHA for sticking to your guns and allowing me to have some of your best while you took some of my worst.

 

[Bluewater Minis]

I haven't yet read through all the responses on this thread yet, but I have been thinking about a breeding stock division for over a year now. I had found an exquisite mare that I absolutely drooled over and wanted desperately

, but she was 36" tall and still had her AMHA papers (one of those oversize minis that some breeders hide away). I did not purchase her because we focus on the smaller minis, but every single one of her foals has now matured at under 34" and several under 32". I dearly wish that there was a section for breeding stock within AMHA and I'd go hunt down and buy that mare! But I think it should be restricted so that an oversize mini can't produce an oversized mini that is also AMHA registered as oversized breeding stock. I think the oversized offspring of oversize "breeding stock" should then have to go to AMHR and lose their AMHA papers. So basically the oversize breeding stock would be valid for just one generation. Their AMHA papers would have to specify "breeding stock only", and I personally don't think they should have AMHA show privileges.

I personally would not support a full oversize division within AMHA, as that's what AMHR is for!

Just my two cents for what it's worth.

 

[McBunz]

Exactly... and if the over sized were not allow to show against the 34'" and under, the little guys would stand a better chance and I feel we would see more and better smaller horses.

 

[Jean_B]

Also, where would I have dumped those 30 inch, straight shouldered, no neck little ones if I hadn’t been able to hardship them into AMHA. They sold like hot cakes as soon as they had the AMHA-- no pedigree papers. I am sure they really helped the gene pool. So I say, " thank you", to AMHA for sticking to your guns and allowing me to have some of your best while you took some of my worst.

Holy CROW, LaVern!! No one can accuse you of pulling any punches...and of not telling it like it is!! This post made my day!! Now cut back on that caffeine, will ya?????

GREAT commentary!!

 

[LaVern]

Hey Jean, Hot enough for you down there? Yes, I have to lay off the coffee this time of night. I just put another pot on called Camerons's Butter Rum Oh, it is nice. Like Jimi said. "Let Me Take You Higher"

 

[bingo]

LaVern no one can ever accuse you of not speaking your mind!