Let's Take a Look at AMHR Now

[R3]

With all the discussions regarding AMHA and how By-Laws and Rules are made, and with all the criticism about how much ‘say’ the membership is given in the AMHA, and how unfair AMHA is because they don’t have mail-in or internet ballots, and people have to go the Annual Meeting to vote for rule change proposals, and there are comments about how little information is in the meeting minutes available on line, etc. I thought I’d compare it to how AMHR(Shetland) does business. And, I think I’ll do it with the same attitude as has been used by some people for the posts regarding AMHA By-Laws and business practices…

First off, I just starting looking through the AMHR(Shetland) website to see how much ‘business’ information is available, such as audit reports or meeting minutes. It doesn’t have much of anything. Does this mean AMHR is hiding stuff from the membership?

Why isn’t there any kind of budget information? Are they in trouble financially, and they don’t want us to know? Why aren’t the audit reports available, with line by line expenses? Are they spending money on things they don’t want us to know about? How much money does AMHR(Shetland) have in the bank? Maybe they are broke?

I didn’t see anything that talked about how much they are spending on the new horsestudbook, or any discussion about the decision to buy into it. Does anyone know how much that is costing and what we are getting from them for our money? We don’t even know what we are getting, and they haven’t consulted the membership.

I looked for the minutes of their Annual Meeting, but I couldn’t find them. It only had two days worth of Board Member minutes; those were for 7 and 10 November 2007. I also noticed that they didn’t have any detail about the discussion on each of the items up for vote in those meetings. Shouldn’t they give us details about the discussion? How are we to know what is going on? I bet they don’t want us know.

What happened on the 8th and 9th of November? I don’t see any minutes from the Membership meeting. I didn’t see any results from a membership vote. Did the members vote? If so, where are the results of that vote, or don’t the members have a say? I thought they did, but if they did, it’s not recorded. Did the membership even get a chance to help run their organization? I guess I must have missed the webcast they set up for the membership who couldn't get to the meeting to watch? Oh, no, that was AMHA that did that, wasn't it? I guess AMHR(Shetland) doesn't want their members that can't afford to travel to know what's going on.

But, if you want a real eye-opener about how much ‘say’ the membership has in AMHR(Shetland), and how few people it takes to control the organization, just read the rule book. You will see who really has the power, and it isn’t the membership, it is the Board.

If everyone is upset because the AMHA By-Laws are voted on by too small of a group of MEMBERS, then people should be furious about what AMHR(Shetland) does. At least with AMHA it takes a two-thirds vote of the MEMBERS to change By-Laws, not 5 Directors at a Board of Directors meeting. The AMHR(Shetland) Board of Directors can make By-law changes for the entire organization, and they don’t have to do it at the Annual Meeting, any Board meeting will do. And, according to the rules, By-Laws can be amended by the vote of only five Directors. If that sounds impossible, just read the rules.

To do business, the Board of Directors only needs a quorum, and a quorum is made of a simple majority. There are 16 Directors, so it only takes 9 to have a quorum. And it only takes a simple majority of the Directors present (if there’s a quorum) to change a By-Law. So, if there are 9 Directors for the quorum, it only takes five votes to have a majority. But, even if the vote is unanimous, only 16 people are making the decisions for the entire membership!!!!

And, if the AMHR(Shetland) Board does something the Membership doesn’t like, and the members want to get a special meeting to vote on an issue, they can, but it comes at a price, and the Board can make it difficult. It is fairly easy to call for the meeting (it just take 100 signatures), but the board doesn’t have to schedule the meeting for up to 6 months, and then they only have to provide 5 days notice of when they will hold it. So, it they don’t want to listen to the Members, all they have to do is put them off for six months, and then give five days notice of the meeting. That make is VERY difficult to plan for a trip to a meeting. It is hard to arrange vacation time on short notice, and plane fares are expensive if you can’t buy them far enough in advance.

And then, to further dissuade people from asking for a special meeting, they expect the members who ask for the meeting to pay all costs associated with the meeting, “… including but not limited to rental of meeting facilities and costs associated with reimbursing the Corporation for the costs associated with having employees, advisors of the Corporation and members of the Board of Directors attend said meeting.” There is nothing to stop them bringing everyone from the office, or additional people such as attorneys, or any other ‘experts’ they wanted, and then they could charge all the expenses back on to the members. Talk about intimidation!!!

And, there is a lot of discussion that AMHA’s rules are inconsistent. How about AMHR/Shetland? Can you mail in a vote or not? Yes, and No, if you read the rule book. In one section it says, “An appropriate form of ballot shall accompany the notice of the meeting, and the copy of the proposed amendment, if

they are mailed, and shall be printed in conjunction with said notice and copy of amendment if printed in the magazine. Any member may vote by marking the same ”yes” or ”no”, signing his name, and mailing the same to the Secretary.” But, in another is says, “Each qualifying member shall be entitled to one vote per membership card as described in sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.5 on each matter submitted to a vote of the members, said voting rights to be exercised in person and not by mail or other means.” Which one are we to believe? They shouldn’t be talking out of both sides of their mouths.

What about the Officers of the AMHR/Shetland organization? Do the Members decide on the President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, or any of the other Officers? NOPE. They are all elected by the Board of Director at the Annual Meeting, and if I’m reading the rules correctly, they are not picked from the Board, but are separate. If that’s so, then they don’t have to have any ‘qualifications’ when it comes to raising Shetland Ponies or Miniature horses. So, people with no ‘horse-sense’ can be elected to run the organization with the vote of a few as 5 people, and no more than 16. (Remember the quorum rules, and the simple majority?)

Oh, just for information, does anyone even know how many members there are in AMHR/Shetland, and how those number break down between the minis and ponies? I keep hearing the number of 6,000-12,000 for AMHA. How does that compare?

If you want to read the Directors Meeting minutes, you can go on line and look at them, if you really want to. (http://www.shetlandminiature.com/board_members.asp#BoardMeetingMinutes) Below are some of the rules from AMHR/Shetland that I have been referencing in my comments

SECTION I AMENDED ARTICLES OF

INCORPORATION OF THE AMERICAN SHETLAND

PONY CLUB..........................................................................

Article IX – Bylaws

For the purpose of regulating and transacting the business

of this Club, Bylaws shall be adopted by the Board of

Directors, as the same may be necessary and advisable from

time to time, as provided by these Articles and the law of the

State of Illinois. Any such By-law may be amended or repealed

by the Board of Directors, or a majority vote of those present

and voting at any annual meeting. All Bylaws existing at the

time of the adoption of these Articles shall remain in full force

and effect until the same shall have been changed or amended

by action of the Board of Directors or the membership.

Article X – Amendments

These Articles may be amended by the Association at an

annual meeting of the members and a two-thirds (2/3) vote of

same. Written notice must be given not later than thirty (30)

days prior to the meeting when said changes are contemplated

and said contemplated changes must be sent to the members

with the said notice.

An appropriate form of ballot shall accompany the notice

of the meeting, and the copy of the proposed amendment, if

they are mailed, and shall be printed in conjunction with said

notice and copy of amendment if printed in the magazine. Any

member may vote by marking the same ”yes” or ”no”, signing

his name, and mailing the same to the Secretary. Such votes by

mail shall be referred to a committee of three at the meeting,

which shall make its report and cast the votes accordingly.

SECTION II BYLAWS OF THE AMERICAN

SHETLAND PONY CLUB

Article II – Members

Section 2.10 – Voting Rights

Each qualifying member shall be entitled to one vote per

membership card as described in sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.5 on

each matter submitted to a vote of the members, said voting

rights to be exercised in person and not by mail or other means.

Section 3.2 – Special Meetings

Special meetings may be called by the President at the

direction of the Board of Directors or upon written request of

one hundred (100) members then entitled to vote. In the event

of a special meeting called by the members, the Board of

Directors shall set the date and time of the special meeting,

with said meeting to be scheduled for a date that is within six

months from the date the corporation receives the written

request from the members. Notice of the special meeting shall

be given not less than five (5) nor more than sixty (60) days

prior to the meeting. The notice shall state concisely the

purpose of said special meeting, and no other business shall be

transacted at such meeting. Additionally, in the event of a

special meeting called by the members, the members requesting

the special meeting shall be responsible for all costs associated

with the meeting, including but not limited to rental of meeting

facilities and costs associated with reimbursing the Corporation

for the costs associated with having employees, advisors of the

Corporation and members of the Board of Directors attend said

meeting.

Article VI – Directors

Section 6.1 – General Powers

The affairs of the Corporation shall be managed by its

Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall have final

decision-making authority on all matters that come before the

general membership at any annual or special meeting with the

exception of any changes to the Articles of Incorporation.

Section 6.2 – Number and Term

The number of Directors shall be sixteen (16), and each

Director shall be elected for a term of three years. Each newly

elected Director shall assume office at the first scheduled Board

of Directors meeting following his or her election. Each Area

shall be represented by one Director occupying the “Shetland

Seat” and one Director occupying the “Open Seat.” The terms

“Shetland Seat” and “Open Seat” are defined in Section 6.3

below.

Section 6.3 – Qualifications for Director

In order to be eligible to serve as a Director of the

Corporation, an individual member must satisfy all of the

following requirements:

(a) The individual must have been an Adult member in

good standing for the five (5) consecutive years

immediately preceding the election in which the

individual will run for Director.

(b) The individual must have attended at least two (2) of

the annual meetings of the American Shetland Pony

Club in the five (5) consecutive years immediatelypreceding the election in which the individual will run

for Director.

© The individual must have been a resident of the Area

in which he or she will run for at least ninety (90) days

preceding the election. For purposes of this section,

residency shall be determined by the address on the

latest federal income tax return filed by the individual

or by the address listed on the individual’s driver’s

license.

(d) To be eligible to serve as a Director occupying the

“Shetland Seat,” the majority of animals registered by

the Corporation, and owned by the individual for the

five (5) consecutive years immediately preceding the

election in which the individual will run for Director,

must be Shetlands. The number of animals and their

ownership shall be verified by the registration on

record at the home office of the Corporation by the

Director of Operations. The term “majority” shall

mean at least one more than one-half of the animals.

For example, if an individual owns eight (8) animals

registered by the Corporation, five (5) of the animals

must be registered Shetlands.

In the event an Area has no individual who is eligible

to serve as a Director occupying the “Shetland Seat,”

the Area may elect an individual who is eligible to

serve under the qualifications required for the “Open

Seat.” In such event, the individual shall serve for a

term of one (1) year.

(e) To be eligible to serve as a Director occupying the

“Open Seat,” the individual must have owned

Shetland Ponies, Miniature Horses or American Show

Ponies for the five (5) consecutive years immediately

preceding the election in which the individual will run

for Director.

Article IX – Officers

Section 9.1 – Enumeration

The officers of the Corporation shall be a President, one or

more Vice Presidents as determined from time to time by the

Board of Directors, a Director of Operations and a Director of

Finance. The Board of Directors may also elect such other

officers as it shall deem appropriate. Officers whose authority

and duties are not prescribed in these Bylaws shall have the

authority and perform the duties as prescribed, from time to

time, by the Board of Directors. The Director of Operations and

Director of Finance shall not be named from the Board of

Directors and may or may not be the same person.

Section 9.2 – Election and Term of Office

The officers of the Corporation shall be elected at the

annual meeting of the Board of Directors and shall hold office

until their successors are elected and qualified or until their

death, resignation or removal. Vacancies may be filled or new

offices created and filled at any meeting of the Board of

Directors. Election of an officer shall not of itself create

contract rights. Any officer elected by the Board of Directors

may be removed by the Board whenever in its judgment the

best interests of the Corporation would be served thereby. Such

removal shall be without prejudice to the contract rights, if any,

of the person so removed.

Section 9.3 – President

The President shall be the principal executive officer of the

Corporation. Subject to the direction and control of the Board

of Directors, the President shall have overall supervision,

direction and control of the business and affairs of the

Corporation and shall perform all duties incidental to the office

of President and such other duties as may be assigned to him or

her by the Board of Directors. Except in those instances in

which the authority to execute is expressly delegated to another

officer or agent of the Corporation or a different mode of

execution is expressly delegated to another officer or agent of

the Corporation or a different mode of execution is expressly

prescribed by the Board of Directors, the President may execute

for the Corporation any contracts, deeds, mortgages, bonds or

other instruments which the Board of Directors has authorized

to be executed, and he or she may accomplish such execution

either under or without the seal of the corporation and either

individually or with the Director of Operations, or any other

officer thereunto authorized by the Board of Directors,

according to the requirements of the form of the instrument.

The President may vote all securities which the Corporation is

entitled to vote, except as and to the extent such authority shall

be vested in a different officer or agent of the corporation by

the Board of Directors.

Section 9.4 – Vice President

The Vice President shall perform such duties and have

such other powers as shall be assigned to him or her by the

President or Board of Directors. Further, in the absence of the

President or in the event of his or her inability or refusal to act,

the Vice President shall perform the duties of the President and,

when so acting, shall have all the powers of and be subject to

all the restrictions upon the President.

Section 9.5 – Director of Operations

The Director of Operations (sometimes referred to as

“Secretary”), shall keep a record of all proceedings of the

Board of Directors in a book to be kept for that purpose; see

that all notices are duly given in accordance with the provisions

of these Bylaws or as required by law; be custodian of the

Corporate records and of the Seal of the Corporation; and

perform all duties incidental to the office of Director of

Operations and such other duties as from time to time may be

assigned by the President of the Board of Directors, consistent

with the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, Rules, and written

30

policies of the Corporation. The Director of Operations shall be

supervised by the Board of Directors through the President, and

shall be hired or terminated upon majority vote of the Board of

Directors. The Director of Operations shall also have the dayto-

day management of the Corporation in all normal operations

unless otherwise specified herein or unless otherwise

designated by the Board of Directors. Among the duties of the

Director of Operations shall be the supervising of the Stud

Book, the general management of the Registry Office,

maintaining personnel, including the hiring and firing of office

staff (with the exception of those employees supervised by the

Director of Finance and the Director of Marketing), carrying

out Corporate policy, and all other duties incidental to the

management of the Registry Office. The Director of Operations

shall be authorized to approve any registrations, transfers, color

and marking corrections, etc., that, in his or her opinion,

conform to the requirements as established by the Board of

Directors. The Director of Operations shall be an ex officio

member of the Board of Directors and of all committees and

shall report all committee recommendations (with the exception

of the Finance Committee, Journal Committee, and Breed

Promotion Committee) to the Board of Directors. The Director

of Operations shall work with the Director of Finance and the

Director of Marketing to prepare the budget discussed in

Section 9.6 below.

Section 9.6 – Director of Finance

The Director of Finance (sometimes referred to as

“Treasurer”) shall have charge of and be responsible for the

maintenance of adequate books of account for the Corporation,

have charge and custody of all funds and securities of the

Corporation and be responsible for the receipt and

disbursement thereof; and perform all duties incident to the

Office of Director of Finance and such other duties as may be

assigned to him or her by the President or the Board of

Directors. The Director of Finance shall be supervised by the

Board of Directors. With the approval of the Board of

Directors, the Director of Finance may delegate specified duties

to an Assistant Director of Finance or other person for the

effective conduct of the affairs of the Corporation. The Director

of Finance shall serve as an ex officio member of the Board of

Directors, and of all committees, and shall report all Finance

Committee recommendations to the Board of Directors. The

Director of Finance shall work with the Director of Operations

and the Director of Marketing to prepare and submit to the

31

Board of Directors, on a yearly basis, a detailed budget of the

proposed and anticipated revenues and expenditures of the

Corporation for its approval. The Director of Finance shall be

responsible for the hiring and firing of the Assistant Director of

Finance.

Section 9.7 – Director of Marketing

The Director of Marketing shall be supervised by the

Board of Directors through the President. The Director of

Marketing shall be responsible for all aspects of the

Corporation’s marketing and advertising, including but not

limited to marketing and advertising of all programs, products,

and services offered by the Corporation. The Director of

Marketing shall serve as an ex officio member of the Board of

Directors and all committees, and shall report all

recommendations of The Journal Committee and Breed

Promotion Committee to the Board of Directors. The Director

of Marketing shall work with the Director of Finance and the

Director of Operations to prepare the budget discussed in

Section 9.6.

Article X – General Provisions

Section 10.8 – Amendments

These Bylaws may be amended from time to time by a

majority vote of the Board of Directors at any meeting at which

a quorum is present. All proposed amendments to the Bylaws

must be submitted in writing to the Board of Directors at least

ninety (90) days prior to the meeting at which the amendment

will be considered.

*Definition of Board of Directors Quorum, from

Article VI – Directors

Section 6.9 – Quorum

A majority of the members of the Board of Directors shall

constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, provided

that if less than a majority of the Directors are present at such

meeting, a majority of the Directors present may adjourn the

meeting to another time without further notice.

 

[kaykay]

Are you unhappy with ASPC/AMHR or are you just mad that AMHA is being posted about so much? And its odd to put AMHR (shetland) ??

Most posts I have read said that BOTH registries need mail in/internet voting and I agree

I have been against horsestudbookonline since day one. And I have been flamed by MANY people right here on this forum for daring to say that from both AMHA and ASPC/AMHR. If you do a search you will find many posts on this and in one of them Belinda stated the figures.

ASPC/AMHR has never been in financial trouble. I do think the figures are printed in the Journal. They have a very healthy bank account but I dont remember the exact numbers.

Neither registry is perfect thats for sure. But for ME ASPC/AMHR is my pick for a registry. Unfortunately at this time in my life I am not able to help more then being on a committee and trying to help promote miniatures and shetland ponies. I think everyone needs to be more involved in being a solution in their chosen registry.

I really hate that we keep tearing apart our registries. I often wonder what new people must think reading all of this.

The ASPC/AMHR website needs a lot of updating and it is being worked on.

 

[sfmini]

What's good for the goose.......

Great job Julie!

See you in a few weeks in Texas.

 

[Jill]

I really enjoy both registries, but am more devoted to AMHR. However, all my breeding horses are AMHR/AMHA registered, and I don't see that changing... Even if I add some ASPC blood, it will be AMHA / AMHR.

As to being flamed on the horsestudbook.com situation, I can't recall that happening but I know from past threads -- sometimes different opinions are felt by some individuals to be a flame when it's just a different point of view

 

[Jill]

Is this what they call a "diversionary tactic?" Are we looking to transfer the "hot seat"?

Noooooooo... that couldn't be the case

 

[Irish Hills Farm]

First off, right off the bat your attitude stinks and because of that I'm not even going to bother reading past the first two paragraphs. You're on nothing more than an attack on AMHR which stands for AMERICAN MINIATURE HORSE REGISTERY which BTW was formed before AMHA. The shetland section of that registry is ASPC - AMERICAN SHETLAND PONY CLUB. If you going to attack, get the names right.

What's good for the goose.......

Great job Julie!

See you in a few weeks in Texas.

This makes it seem like AMHR attacked AMHA, which is VERY FAR from the truth.

Perhaps if AMHA LISTENED to it's members it wouldn't find itself being posted about so much. This refers to their new measuring system.

Is this what they call a "diversionary tactic?" Are we looking to transfer the "hot seat"?

Ya think?

 

[whimsical]

I totally agree that AMHA seems to get the brunt of the abuse on this forum.

I am more favorable to AMHA. Mainly because of where I live and the amount of opportunity for this region.

But it seems that no one will admit that there are "humans" running the registry and unfortunately they don't know everything, so mistakes are bound to happen. I personally feel that AMHA has made huge strides of improvement and pulling themselves out of a hole I have worked for two separate companies in the past that have done much worse blunders........so I guess my perspective is a little off.

One healthcare company spent 20 million in producing a program to intigrate all their functions and eventually scrapped it because they couldn't overcome the glitches.

Another wholesale company spent 1 million on a program that had minimal functions.

Since I am not an avid AMHR person I would like to know the expectations AMHR has for the horsestudbook.com. Are they planning on having registration be all internet based? Did they use a similar program as AMHA prior to buying into the new program? These things can make a major difference in compatability and transition to explain one success and one failure.

Anyway, good job in letting us know the difference in AMHA and AMHR. It is surprising that things can be changed with 5 directors. That is simply shocking.

 

[R3]

Its not a 'diversion'. But, YES, it is an attempt to 'share' the 'hot seat'. No registry is perfect. But, if we're going to pick apart one organization, in the interest of fairness, lets also point out the realities in both.

AMHA is not perfect, and we as loyal members need to address legitimate concerns and get them corrected. But, someone reading this Forum would see page after page of AMHA inadequecies, and how people are saying, 'maybe I shouldn't even bother being an AMHA member anymore.' But, I don't see anyone saying, 'Hey, AMHR has most of these issues', and when it comes to how much the members have a say in the organization, AMHR is even worse. We just need to have a reality check occasionally.

Why do I keep saying AMHR(Shetland)? Because I didn't know how else to say it. It would actually have been more correct to say Shetland(AMHR). AMHR does not have its 'own' organization. There is no 'AMHR' National Members meeting. There is at best a few Committees for AMHR at the National Meeting. The rest of the focus is on the various sections of the Shetlands, such as Classic, Foundation, Modern, etc. There is no hidden slur to the terminology I used. It is just fact.

But, now that it has been brought up, maybe I should mention that too. AMHR is a minor part of the organization. The AMHR portion will never be the emphasis of the organization. That is assured by the requirements for the Board of Directors. Those requirements are part of what I quoted. There are two Directors for each District, and one of those MUST be a 'Shetland' person. The other person fills an 'Open' seat, so it could be a Shetland or a Miniature person. So, Miniature people can't be a majority on the Board.

Another question, are my 'miniature' dollars 'supporting' the Shetland ponies? Didn't I just read that the Shetland Congress is a money LOSING show? Why should AMHR dollars be spent to support a breed that is sucking the dollars, but not giving us the representation?

 

[kaykay]

Julie

You really need to look back at the history of ASPC/AMHR (which I believe is the correct way instead of shetland/amhr) I know you know that ASPC was first. Then ASPC created AMHR (the FIRST American Miniature Horse Registry) And yes the forefathers wanted to ensure that the Shetland Ponies (that were first) would not be forgotten so those bylaws were written in on requirements for holding directorship.

There have been many posts about ASPC/AMHR. But since your focus is AMHA you probably didnt even notice them.

Everyone has to stick with what they love and are loyal to. I made the decision 2 years ago to stop being an AMHA member. I almost changed my mind and went back but didnt. That is my right. Just as its your right not to be a member of ASPC/AMHR if you dont want to.

I really am starting to think we are our own worst enemy. Between posts tearing about both registries and posts about how bad the market is etc etc we could just do ourselves in.

I say we all get back to PROMOTING SMALL EQUINE!!!

 

[Laura]

[SIZE=12pt]ASPC/AMHR is just that, american shetland ponies AND american miniature horses. If you have something against promoting ponies too, well then AMHR might not be for you. That's a real shame though, you won't find a better group of people anywhere

[/SIZE]

 

[bingo]

Are you unhappy with ASPC/AMHR or are you just mad that AMHA is being posted about so much?

One has to wonder how much heat are you trying to take off of AMHA what is the point of this post?

Another smoke screen?

It is like a child getting caught doing something wrong and instead of saying your right I am sorry they say oh yea well look so and so did this 3 months ago

No one has said either registry is perfect but this is just plain immature

The difference here is at the Convention there was no discussion that changed ASPC/AMHR to the very core. There was no change in measuring rules which allowed horses up to 2 inches taller in some cases to be legally allowed into the registry.

The difference is there is no rule that has been changed that changes the entire integrity of the registry.(Not to mention all the marketing and promotion that now has to be changed or make the entire AMHA look to be trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

There has been no one time that I can remember in the past 10 years where members have had to bail the registry out financially just to keep it afloat.

That is not to say everyone is always happy with rule changes and not being allowed to vote. I do think everyone should have a vote but to start a post like this with the sole intent of trying to make ASPC/AMHR look bad without a actual complaint or issue going before the board but just to try to attempt to take heat off of AMHA just makes it look worse for AMHA in the long run.

The bottom line is if the AMHA board truly feels that there is a lot less complaining going on within AMHR towards their board and decisions they make well perhaps they need to take a look at why?

I am not saying it is true I am simply going with what you started Julie and how it can make things look.

We all know that trying this tit for tat thing is silly and only going to tear apart a market that is not at it's strongest and the only ones to truly lose are us the breeders, exhibitors, owners.

 

[R3]

I agree, we ALL need to play nice and support both the registries.

I just wrote a long reply explaining that, and the reason I used the 'attitude' when I started this post, but for some reason, it just went into cyberspace and didn't appear. I'm already late for work, so can't redo it now, but I'll try to get on to explain myself as soon as I can.

Hopefully, this quicky post will work...

More later...

 

[Minimor]

Julie, I think you have missed the point entirely when it comes to all the AMHA posts on here. People have been focusing on AMHA because of one thing--the foolish rule change regarding the measurement spot. That is why there is such a fuss about who gets to vote and how they go about it. That is what it's all about.

Do you have a specific complaint about ASPC/AMHR? Is there a certain thing you would like changed? Want to see them have mail in or internet or proxy voting? Well, make up your proposal and post on here about it. Maybe you'd like to have AMHR measure the same way that AMHA has voted in--at the base of the withers? Make a rule change proposal then. Go to the meeting and get that one voted in...maybe you'd like to have it voted in for the Shetlands tooo????... and then you'll get to see all the ASPC/AMHR people post on here about what a stupid rule change it was for their registry, and how they want to get a change to allow mail in voting.

Jody--that was just way below you (or should have been!) as an AMHA director to applaud pot shots at another registry.

Overall, Julie, I don't see that you have anything specific against AMHR, you're just drawing at straws and making a very poor attempt at bashing ASPC/AMHR. When you don't even know the proper name of the association (or are just too childish to use it) then your entire post becomes laughable. Childish. May I say that you do it well. I do hope that you feel better now.

 

[bingo]

In reading some of the responses that were posted while I was typing I can say that yes AMHR has its own segment during convention as does all the other registries including ASPR , NSPR and ASPC. They all get their fair share of time and it is split with ASPC. It is not like the whole convention is about ASPC with just a few short minutes on the other things that is simply non truth.

Once again this is doing nothing to further your cause. In fact as far as I am concerned it makes it much harder to see any valid points you may have concerning AMHA after this display I can only once again liken it to a child caught at doing something wrong and trying every and all tactics to get away with it by blaming everyone or everything else instead of taking responsibility. I can just see the foot stomping and whining now but what about AMHR or ASPC what about WCMHR!

As to the computer AMHR is using horsestudbook.com. I know many show managers that really like this program once they learn it and of course things need to be tweaked but it is up and functionable for ASPC/AMHR perhaps not going at 100 percent but useable for sure.

All you need to do is go on and check out the shows to be able to see how that whole portion works and is being used.

 

[txminipinto]

My only response is if the ASPC/AMHR is so bad and horrible, why is it that I'm seeing more and more (what used to be) AMHA only exhibitors/trainers showing at our shows? And why does our National show have 1,000+ more horses than AMHA? And let's leave the rules for qualifying out.

 

[Jill]

what about WCMHR!

WCMHR has about 1 million miles and a few hundred years to go before it reaches the legitimacy of AMHR and AMHA

 

[wildoak]

I am a member of both registries, and have enjoyed showing in both. This didn't come off to me as an "attack" on AMHR but a slightly tongue in cheek comparison. Of course neither registry is perfect - both are subject to human error. AMHA has had more highly publicized mistakes in the last few years, many of which were costly and should have been preventable with more careful management. Because there have been errors, there is a tendency now to pick apart every single thing AMHA does, and to over scrutinize, while I see very little questioning of what AMHR - okay, ASPC/AMHR - does or how it is done. AMHA needs to be looked at closely, not trying to deflect any necessary attention, but really it's destructive to the association to be picked apart for every little thing they do.

This may be fodder for another thread, but I do wonder what the status of the horsestudbook online is with AMHR. Are they satisfied with the program, does it meet expectations? Have they spent an arm and a leg getting it running? What is the difference in how the two associations have used it?

Jan

 

[McBunz]

The big difference is the AMHR did not change their standard to allow larger horses in to their registry and

anger hundreds of members. The AMHR didn't say their non existent change was to stop measuring cheats

at their show.. when in fact it was to allow these cheats to continue to show legally.. with the new bottom of

the withers measuring rule..

 

[sfmini]

I was not applauding pot shots, darn should have known people would, as always read something into it, always happens with this group.

I was applauding the tongue in cheek comment that was pointing out that while AMHA seems to be a favorite target for negative comments, AMHR just about walks on water.

 

[txminipinto]

I was applauding the tongue in cheek comment that was pointing out that while AMHA seems to be a favorite target for negative comments, AMHR just about walks on water.

Oh, believe me it doesn't. Members have their objections to ASPC/AMHR just as members of AMHA have with them. I don't know why members of ASPC/AMHR don't vocalize more here on this forum but we have issues just like AMHA does. Our biggest issue of late was when the board decided to remove all A and B designations from the SHETLANDS. Primarily for the foal crops starting this year as well as now showing strictly by TYPE. The reasoning behind the change was the new computer system was spitting out B's on foals that should have been A registered (to clarify, regarding shetlands A and B have nothing to do with HEIGHT but are used to determine the amount of outside (hackney, welsh, americana) blood and therefore determines which type class you show in). This now allows someone to show a B papered shetland (typically Modern) in a Classic class should it fit the Classic type. A lot of the hoopla over this had to do with using the A/B for pedigree research as well as determining if a foal/pony was eligible for the Foundation seal and showing off type (which is a mute point as this already happens to a certain point). At this time, we are told, that ponies will still have to have a Foundation seal to show in Foundation and the computer can still determine if a foal should have seal or not.

So, just because you aren't hearing complaints from the members of ASPC/AMHR doesn't mean there aren't any.