Measuring... heard talk of a new proposal...

[Belinda]

I hear that there is a second proposal regarding measuring at the withers.

This proposal, I'm told, impacts both minis and ponies and the measurement would be at the bottom of the withers.

Anyone have more information on this?

Note to Belinda and other board members: If it's not just hearsay, I'm guessing you've gotten wind of this proposal and please give us more detail if you can.

Bob ,

No one I have talked to knows anything about it , and it would have gone to Larry as Chair of the AMHR committee , To me as Chair of the Classic Committe, and the chairs of any other division it would deal with ..

 

[Yaddax3]

Belinda:

Thank you for the quick response. If you and Larry haven't seen it, it doesn't exist as a proposal.

Perhaps it was someone's idea for a proposal and it was never sent in. I will look into that for my own satisfaction. Thanks again and we look forward to seeing you at Congress. (My kids are hoping you'll have more peanuts for them to snack on.)

 

[midnight star stables]

Well, I guess it could also be commented on how much 34" has grown. There are small ponies competing as Minis, and there are 36" Minis competing in the under 34" division. For some reason, though, that seems to be okay....perhaps because those ones are not so likely to be registered Shetlands?

If there is suddenly this major concern about doing something about oversize horses being shown then the concern should be about both size divisions, Over and Under, not just the Over division. So, if you want to clean this up, why not crack down on measuring practices--enforcing the rules regarding stance of horse, actions of handler, pressing down on the measure stick etc etc etc instead of coming up with a rule that will eliminate the 37" to 38" at-the-last-mane-hair horses. Even with measuring at the withers, if someone wants to take an oversize horse and stand him spraddle legged and all stretched out, chances are they're going to fit him into the size limit too. You're going to be surprised at how tall 38" at-the-withers is too.

Well, in the first place you are taking Mini papers away from foals that would normally be able to have them under the current rules....foals that are born to parents that are registered AMHR as well as ASPC....foals from several generations of ASPC/AMHR horses. Is a horse that is registered both AMHR and ASPC more Shetland than Miniature if it comes from 4 or 5 generations of registered ASPC/AMHR horses? The 40" ponies that would be AMHR registered may be competitive as a pony, but that does depend on the pony--truth is there are quite a number of ASPC/AMHR horses that are much more competitive as a Mini than as a pony. Some of them look much more Mini than pony, and some of them would be lacking the style and/or movement that it takes to win in good pony competition. (And I am NOT saying that Minis lack style or movement, but judges as a rule do count movement a lot less in Minis than they do in ponies.)

This rule change will in no way affect me--I am not going to be breeding any Minis and probably won't even be showing many of them, so whichever way it goes it makes no difference to me personally. But, if I were able to go to Convention and vote on this rule I would vote AGAINST it. I am totally opposed to it as it stands. I am all for measuring at the top of the wither, but totally opposed to the height limit not being adjusted to allow for withers on the horse.

I too think it is unfair if a new rule just instantly eliminates the breeding programs of some farms (and I believe this one would do that very thing). What concerns me is the fact that similar things have been done before—such as the closing of hardshipping to unregistered horses; that was done with so little notice it left some people with crossbred horses that couldn’t be registered because they weren’t yet old enough to be hardshipped in—very disappointing, I’m sure, when people were purposefully breeding these horses to add into the registry. At least with AMHA, plenty of notice has been given so breeders know that beyond a certain date their unregistered foals won’t be able to get into the registry. And I agree with Fran—if certain people want this rule to pass, it will pass. I wouldn’t say this rule favors AMHA exactly, but it does favor those who want to shut ASPC out of the AMHR registry.

jeniemac--they are not "crosses" in many cases--they are Shetlands that happen to be the right size to also be registered as Miniatures. They are double registered, not "crosses", though of course there are people that are breeding an AMHR horse to an AMHR/ASPC horse, so the resulting foal is AMHR as well as half Shetland.

Honestly, if this rule passes as is, there are going to be a lot of hard feelings in the registry--I can see that coming. I will be deeply disappointed, and feel really bad for those who will actually be affected by this rule change.

I don't think anyone is concerned about the ASPC/AMHR horses. They will always have some place to go. The concern is the honest 38" at the last hair AMHR only horse that will now measure out if they measure at the withers. It is those horses and those owners I am concerned about. I am at a loss why anyone would just shrug their shoulders and say "too bad" to those owners if this rule passes as it is written. It is blatantly unfair and is exactly the type of action that tickes people off and makes them leave our association.

If we are going to measure at the withers then we need to adjust our heights so that current horses are not suddenly excluded and left paperless. In this economy, the association needs to be doing all that it can to retain and bring in new members.

Perhaps combine these two ideas? The registry could make it so that all horses are measured first at the top of the withers, and if they measure above 34/38' (or whatever they raise the standard to), and were born before the proposed date (2011), they could be remeasured at the last hairs of the mane, as stated above.

These horses that are already born and registered could still show. The registry could then create a 'breeding only division'. Horses in this division would be horses that are the ofspring of horses registered before the proposed date (2011), and grew over the height standards. These horses would not loose thier heritage or value as miniature horses since they could still be used for breeding. They could not be shown however, due to their height. This would create incentive for breeders to breed for horses within the height range, rather then continuing to breed horses that are above 38inches (or whatever the standards are raised to) at the withers.

This division could also be opened up to other horses that outgrow thier papers. Aslong as both parents are registered, if the resulting baby outgrows the 38' height range, the baby would not be considered grade, but rather a miniature without showing rights?

I think adding this division would not only help with the problems concerning changing the point of measurement, but could be a step in becoming a BREED rather then a HEIGHT REGISTRY.

Just my thoughts.....

Please ignore my awful spelling.

Great things said!

I personally would like to see the "grandfathering" rule brought in, allowing for us to be more of a BREED.

I'd also like harder, more strict polices on the measuring rules, whether the measuring is done at the LHOTM or TOTW. And if measuring is moved to the TOTW, I'd like to see the height raised to 39" or 40" AND implemented in 3 to 5 YEARS from now to allow farms to make needed changes in a timely manner. To top it all off, seeing a "5-20 year goal" would be ideal for the registry and members alike!

Also, yes this would affect my breeding program too, as I only have AMHR horses (No ASPC at this time), and I breed for B minis. My foals would be worthless as I desire a performance horse of 36-38" at the LHOTM, if the TOTW was brought in with the height limit not being changed. The would also, of course, be unregistered without the grandfathering effect. As a proud member, following the current rules, this would truly be a SLAP in the face! And I'm sure I'm not alone, unfortunately.

Also, I'd love to be at Convention, (especially to receive my HOF this year!!) but money may very well NOT allow this. How is it fair that an absent member's opinion is just cast aside and not heard?

Just my thoughts.

 

[Jacki Loomis]

As I've stated previously, I do not support a change in the method used to measure AMHR or AMHA Miniature Horses. "Reo" brought up some points that reinforce for me that a change would not benefit most Miniature Horses or their owners.

Reo said in part

"Years from now all those horses (1000's) that were legally under 34" before, are now too close to the limit or over and UNDESIRABLE. NO ONE will want to buy them. People "adjusting" their programs won't have any place to sell their horses to. The rescues and roadways are already full enough of horses. What will happen when there are 1000's of horses no one wants because they're no longer wanted because they're too big for the A breeders? Dumped in sales or heading to meat plants in Mexico?"

 

Several commentators have encouraged us to consider all members, not just ourselves. So, I wonder what ASPC Shetland Breeders think about changing the method used to measure AMHR Miniature Horses. I could see this change impacting them significantly, fewer ASPC Shetlands will be able to qualify for AMHR Hardship as they will not measure 38" at the top of the wither.

This does not bother me, some among this forum may even see that as a positive if they view Shetlands showing in the miniature ring as a problem but either way it could have a significant financial impact on the small Shetland market.

When ASPC/AMHR lowered the Hardshipping fee I foresaw this situation, it is cheap and easy to hardship a shetland into AMHR and so many people are doing it. We are show people and so we will do what it takes to produce the show horse of the day and I have hardshipped several, that said I have never been a supporter of the lower fees because I knew it would impact what was shown in the AMHR show ring and it would forever change our AMHR Miniature Horse.

I think this has been a healthy dialogue about a very important issue, I'm glad we've had this opportunity.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]

 

[Magic]

I agree with what Reo said too. What DOES happen to all of those "just breeding stock" horses that before this proposed rule change were legitimate miniature horses under the present rules? Their value nosedives, even if they are grandfathered in. For the many breeders who wouldn't want to chance breeding them in case the foals go over (whether over the "under" category or over the "over" category), what choice do they have but to try to sell them, at newly-devalued prices? There are also bound to be *MANY* AMHR members who would feel betrayed and alienated by their registry and I think that the registry would suffer greatly because of it. Both memberships and registrations would likely drop drastically. That wouldn't be good for anyone.

I have both AMHA and AMHR miniatures, both over and under 34". I don't breed for the tiniest horse possible; I breed for the best conformation possible, with great movement. Performance is my preference (though we've done well in halter too) so I like the horses at the upper end of each category. I could live with this rule change, it wouldn't affect me much (though many of my "unders" would likely become "overs" overnight) but I can see that it could devastate many programs and cause a lot of resentment and sorrow, and that's something that would be very sad to have happen.

 

[Songcatcher]

Robin, you know how much I appreciate you. But with all respect, I feel you are over reacting on this one. If every one will look back at the proposal (which I think almost everyone agrees would be better with some tweaking), NO ONE IS BEING DUMPED OUT. If your passion is with 32-34 inch horses at LHOTM, you will still have them, maybe in a different class, but still there. If breeders of the upper size horses change their breeding programs, there is the market for your formerly 34 inch horses LHOTM that are now over. The ones that will be most affected by this is of course the owners of the 37-38 inch LHOTM horses that will go over at the withers. Will those horses lose value? If you feel they are inferior to the Show Ponies, yes.

 

My passion is with under 30. Currently, both of my stallions are under 30. If the measurement changes to TOTW, one will still be under 30, and the other probably just over. So what if they have a different tag. They are still the same horse and I love them. I currently have one 2 year old filly that will probably mature about 29 inches LHOTM and around 30 TOTW. I have two mares that measure 30 inches dead on LHOTM and of course will be a little over 30 TOTW. All my other mares are under 32 LHOTM. I have one yearling filly (that I adore) that could possibly go over 32 LHOTM and possibly over 34 TOTW when mature (even though her parents were 31.75 and 31), but I am OK with that. She will be grandfathered in and eventually bred to a smaller stallion.

 

The point is, NO ONE IS BEING KICKED OUT.

 

[AshleyNicole]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree...I posted earlier that I used to own a AMHR only filly that would have been kicked out if born in 2011 under this new rule(if I understand it correctly ) she would have been just another unregistered horse. Most of my horses would be fine except one or two, one being my main herd sire who is in the 34" under category currently. I want to produce 34" and under foals but couldn't with him under the new rule. I just don't think I should have to change my breeding goals because some want to change the way horses are measured....essentially as Kim said in a earlier post(great post btw) changing the height of the breed and thus reducing the practicality of minis in the eyes of the "Big Horse" world. I do think Robin is right and people will get rid of the horses in their programs that don't fit in with their goals(I won't but some will) especially if AMHA follows AMHR in this and I really think they might.

 

[midnight star stables]

Robin, you know how much I appreciate you. But with all respect, I feel you are over reacting on this one. If every one will look back at the proposal (which I think almost everyone agrees would be better with some tweaking), NO ONE IS BEING DUMPED OUT. If your passion is with 32-34 inch horses at LHOTM, you will still have them, maybe in a different class, but still there. If breeders of the upper size horses change their breeding programs, there is the market for your formerly 34 inch horses LHOTM that are now over. The ones that will be most affected by this is of course the owners of the 37-38 inch LHOTM horses that will go over at the withers. Will those horses lose value? If you feel they are inferior to the Show Ponies, yes.

 

My passion is with under 30. Currently, both of my stallions are under 30. If the measurement changes to TOTW, one will still be under 30, and the other probably just over. So what if they have a different tag. They are still the same horse and I love them. I currently have one 2 year old filly that will probably mature about 29 inches LHOTM and around 30 TOTW. I have two mares that measure 30 inches dead on LHOTM and of course will be a little over 30 TOTW. All my other mares are under 32 LHOTM. I have one yearling filly (that I adore) that could possibly go over 32 LHOTM and possibly over 34 TOTW when mature (even though her parents were 31.75 and 31), but I am OK with that. She will be grandfathered in and eventually bred to a smaller stallion.

"The point is, NO ONE IS BEING KICKED OUT."

Except that is just NOT true! Without raising the height limit, there will be horses KICKED OUT! Not the current horses, but many current breeding stock horses will undoubtedly produce foals and stock that WILL go over. These could be broodmares and stallions that have been used for years, but now with this new rule, them and their foals will be VALUELESS. You don't seem to grasp the number of 36-38" (and even over sized 39") horses and farms that WILL be GREATLY affected.

And, again with out raising the height, my 33" LHOTM show horse would be worth much less in my eyes. Sure, she could keep showing as an "A", but likely her foals would go over, and no body wants a horse that is just over into another division. This mare herself has done wonderful things for me, but she clearly looks "A" size. As a "B" she simply does not have what it would take to be as successful. That would have a impact on her value.

And going back to the "B's" for a moment, if this rule took affect in 2011, as listed I would be out a lot of money. I have a AMHR only mare that is around 37-38" LHOTM who is being bred to a 38" LHOTM stallion. I have spent over $4000 on this breeding... for what, a GRADE horse?! That is just plain ridiculous and I would be devastated if that were the case. I am NOT rich and this was a huge goal for me (and yes a huge deal of money)- my only foal of the year. To just be thrown aside is huge to me. I am not the only one is this situation.

And yes, I feel that my MINIATURE HORSES ARE inferior to the current Show Ponies! They are very different.

I am very against this rule as it stands. It should be done over years and have the height changed. I am glad that some will not be affected, but others will be, and that should be a huge concern. Right now, we really don't need to rock the boat, with the market the way it is.

JMHO as a concerned AMHR member.

 

[Songcatcher]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree...I posted earlier that I used to own a AMHR only filly that would have been kicked out if born in 2011 under this new rule she would have been just another unregistered horse. Most of my horses would be fine except one or two, one being my main herd sire who is in the 34" under category currently. I want to produce a 34" and under foals but couldn't with him under the new rule. I just don't think I should have to change my breeding goals because some want to change the way horses are measured....essentially as Kim said in a earlier post(great post btw) changing the height of the breed and thus reducing the practicality of minis in the eyes of the "Big Horse" world. I do think Robin is right and people will get rid of the horses in their programs that don't fit in with their goals(I won't but some will) especially if AMHA follows AMHR in this and I really think they might.

Ashley, I REALLY AM trying to understand your rationale, and not just be arguementive. BUT, you have again overlooked several points. First of all, as I mentioned, almost everyone agrees that there needs to be some tweaking, like extending the deadline farther than 2011. Maybe 2012 or even 2015.

 

Secondly, the way you state it, the only value in your filly is in her registration papers. She would be eligible for the Show Pony registry. IF you feel she is so inferior that she would not fit there, perhaps she should be culled from the gene pool anyway.

 

Thirdly, it appears (the way you have stated it) that the lable on your stallion is more important than what he actually is. You would not have to change your breeding program, but your breeding program could possibly have a different lable on it.

 

AND, that is why we are in this mess to begin with. The originators wanted them to APPEAR to be smaller than they actually are. I think it is time correct that mistake.

 

[Songcatcher]

Desiree, it appears we were typing at the same time. I think I addressed most of your same issues in my reply above. All I can say is, I'm sorry you have spent so much money on a foal that you yourself consider inferior. Your words, not mine.

We all have opinions and concerns. Yours is as valid as mine. And vise-versa.

 

[AshleyNicole]

Ashley, I REALLY AM trying to understand your rationale, and not just be arguementive. BUT, you have again overlooked several points. First of all, as I mentioned, almost everyone agrees that there needs to be some tweaking, like extending the deadline farther than 2011. Maybe 2012 or even 2015.

 

Secondly, the way you state it, the only value in your filly is in her registration papers. She would be eligible for the Show Pony registry. IF you feel she is so inferior that she would not fit there, perhaps she should be culled from the gene pool anyway.

 

Thirdly, it appears (the way you have stated it) that the lable on your stallion is more important than what he actually is. You would not have to change your breeding program, but your breeding program could possibly have a different lable on it.

 

AND, that is why we are in this mess to begin with. The originators wanted them to APPEAR to be smaller than they actually are. I think it is time correct that mistake.

I know I am not taking it as anything other than a discussion but I never planned on breeding that filly, I had gotten her as a driving horse to possibly compete at some shows with, I don't think that she would have been able to compete in a new category. I would be all for this new rule if the height were raised. I have some horses that are only AMHA registered so if AMHA also decided to measure this way then I couldn't breed my AMHA only mares to my stallion. I know that I could get them registered with AMHR but if I did I would like the resulting foals to be double registered if I went to the trouble to have the mares double registered there is a possibility that the foals wouldn't be if the mares were bred to the now over sized stallion. I do agree that the originators should have from the start had them measured at the withers but if we are correcting a mistake we should do our best to not alienate current members

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Songcatcher,

It isn't that Ashley's horse should be culled. Or it is inferior, it is more like inappropriate. Taking most miniatures to show in the ASPR would be like taking a Country Western driving horse and putting it in a park class.

But didn't the association create a class for those horses who did not have the higher head action for country pleasure to have a division called country western for lower head sets and a different leg action. So were these horses inferior? Should they have been culled? Just because they are not park horses, nor single pleasure horses, nor even country pleasure.

In today's ASPR country pleasure class you need a park horse to compete. And very few minis are actually park horses.

 

[Minimor]

I wasn't going to say this, but I guess I will after all.

All this talk about and pointing fingers at horses that seem to be inferior. Keep in mind that I wouldn't personally use the word "inferior" to describe them, but that's how some want to call them, so that is the word I will use here. Perhaps some of these horses are inferior when it comes to competing in the Shetland ring, and perhaps some of them are inferior when it comes to competing as a National Show Pony, but a good many of them are WINNING in the AMHR ring. So, I ask you this--when you have inferior ponies winning AMHR classes, what does that say about things???

I was talking about this with someone yesterday. She asked me what is the point of this proposal. I said I wasn't really sure, that I get why measuring at the withers is a good thing, but I don't get why it's necessary to reduce height at the same time. I don't see why the horses cannot remain at the same height as they've always been, only now they would be recognized as their true height at the withers. She said that it sounds to her like someone just wants to eliminate the taller horses that so often are winning in the ring--a sore loser way of getting rid of some competition. Well, you know when she put it that way I wasn't sure what to say--I couldn't really argue with that statement. It does have that note to it.

Moving horses from AMHR into National show pony...first off that means added expense in terms of DNA. Secondly, there is no place to show NSPR other than Congress, because currently Congress is the only show that offers NSPR classes. As I recall, all that is offered there is one driving class, one western class and one english class. That alone lets Miniatures out of the competition, other than the driving class....because how many Miniatures, even the tall ones, get ridden walk, trot, canter by anyone other than small children? The majority of owners don't have small children that can ride w/t/c. "Dump your tall breeding stock or move their offspring into NSPR" isn't much of an alternative! NSPR was intended for the bigger ponies....where ASPC or AMHR is crossed on a bigger horse to produce a 13 or 13.2 hh pony.

 

[txminipinto]

Songcatcher,

It isn't that Ashley's horse should be culled. Or it is inferior, it is more like inappropriate. Taking most miniatures to show in the ASPR would be like taking a Country Western driving horse and putting it in a park class.

But didn't the association create a class for those horses who did not have the higher head action for country pleasure to have a division called country western for lower head sets and a different leg action. So were these horses inferior? Should they have been culled? Just because they are not park horses, nor single pleasure horses, nor even country pleasure.

In today's ASPR country pleasure class you need a park horse to compete. And very few minis are actually park horses.

AMEN! Classic example of people NOT understanding the shetland pony and the ASPC.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

I wasn't going to say this, but I guess I will after all.

All this talk about and pointing fingers at horses that seem to be inferior. Keep in mind that I wouldn't personally use the word "inferior" to describe them, but that's how some want to call them, so that is the word I will use here. Perhaps some of these horses are inferior when it comes to competing in the Shetland ring, and perhaps some of them are inferior when it comes to competing as a National Show Pony, but a good many of them are WINNING in the AMHR ring. So, I ask you this--when you have inferior ponies winning AMHR classes, what does that say about things???

I was talking about this with someone yesterday. She asked me what is the point of this proposal. I said I wasn't really sure, that I get why measuring at the withers is a good thing, but I don't get why it's necessary to reduce height at the same time. I don't see why the horses cannot remain at the same height as they've always been, only now they would be recognized as their true height at the withers. She said that it sounds to her like someone just wants to eliminate the taller horses that so often are winning in the ring--a sore loser way of getting rid of some competition. Well, you know when she put it that way I wasn't sure what to say--I couldn't really argue with that statement. It does have that note to it.

Moving horses from AMHR into National show pony...first off that means added expense in terms of DNA. Secondly, there is no place to show NSPR other than Congress, because currently Congress is the only show that offers NSPR classes. As I recall, all that is offered there is one driving class, one western class and one english class. That alone lets Miniatures out of the competition, other than the driving class....because how many Miniatures, even the tall ones, get ridden walk, trot, canter by anyone other than small children? The majority of owners don't have small children that can ride w/t/c. "Dump your tall breeding stock or move their offspring into NSPR" isn't much of an alternative! NSPR was intended for the bigger ponies....where ASPC or AMHR is crossed on a bigger horse to produce a 13 or 13.2 hh pony.

How about the word "inappropriate".

 

[Karen S]

“Karen,

 

I am not wanting to rob this thread but can you please direct me to the procedure, bylaw, rule or other specific area that correctly identifies and otherwise outlines the highlighted area...I am not aware of any such rules or procedure in print in any area of our organization and question the validity of any attempt to enforce or otherwise follow such guidelines in the absents of any such requirements. All committees are formed and staffed by the president of the ASPC/AMHR other then those individuals so named, no other members or officials are part of that committee and only those who are members of any committee may vote on any item before them...the membership whether present or not during any committee meeting has absolutely zero authority regarding a committee action...the general membership meeting is another story but the outline of events as highlighted above are absent of any validation within our organization to my knowledge.

The far reaching effect and importance of something having such far reaching ramifications as this would have, should not be taken so trivial as to be considered or rejected based on a flawed and irrational protocol/precedent which follows no doctrine or written guidelines. JMHO”

Good Morning Ray,

Thank you for responding to my post, but in my post you will see I said “customary”. I have been attending every convention since 1998 and have attended many of the committee meetings while there. In the past ten years it has been “customary” to present proposals without the author’s name and NO there has NEVER been any formal protocol for it as you want to point out. Only up until recently (2009) have any of the proposals presented for consideration even been posted on the internet or the ASPC/AMHR website. We all have had to wait until we got to the convention, went into those committee meetings, to know what was being proposed. Why? It is because any proposal presented had not even been printed in our official “Journal” for the membership to review before the convention or discuss just like we are doing now.

Way before the current chairman was appointed as chair of the Classic committee, the chair during that period of time before her was a member of our club and she did share those proposals that were presented with our club members, there again keeping the author unknown so that we could discuss them. I know you are the chair of the By-laws as well as many members of this forum know, and just like you all of us that are committee chairs ARE appointed by the President as that is written in our official rulebook.

I have been committee chair of the amateur committee since convention 2002. I do know how to run a meeting with proposals. I do know how to present those proposals to the floor without ridicule to any author. It is “customarily” asked if that author is present. A simple answer yes or no is all that is asked and received during those meetings. No there isn’t anything printed in any of our rules regarding leaving off the authors name even though it is asked for on those proposal forms. So, I guess you will want to make a By-law or rule to do just that. That’s fine with me. Just accept my post the way it was written. I was merely explaining HOW it has been done and what happens when an author is exposed before convention. Yes, Belinda has her flame suite on, and she does most of the time, but again it was HER choice to let anyone know that she was presenting that proposal on another person’s behalf. Right now, it still doesn’t give ANY committee chair the right to post the authors names to the membership until we DO have something in writing giving us direction to do so. So in the meantime, it’s best to leave it as it is. I too have big shoulders and can discuss things rationally and most folks respect what I write or say either in person or in written form. I try really hard to listen to what their pros or cons are without being judgmental of that person concerning any subject matter that affects us all. It’s still up to the membership to vote on those issues. Yes, my proposals were voted down at convention in the committee’s to which I submitted them in, but in the long run I would have appreciated the chair of the committee that posted my proposals to the ASPC/AMHR website in 2009 to have kept my name off of those proposals. Until such time at convention if anyone attending those committee’s had wanted to know “who” the author was, then I had the opportunity to let them know it was me that presented them. I might had wanted an opportunity to change some wording at that time, but people already had a pre-conceived idea of the outcome of that proposal (just like this case) so those proposals were voted down which was fine by me. So by keeping those authors out of the spotlight it allows good discussion overall and not ridicule anyone.

Thank you for enlightening us all by pointing out that there isn’t any By-law or rule regarding this matter and if one is needed I’m sure we will be seeing something soon which should be presented to the general membership at convention regarding this matter. I will allow the members of the ASPC/AMHR and those paid convention goers the opportunity to discuss it just like we are doing here today, discussing this proposal that has been brought forward. That’s a good thing for all.

Again, Thanks Ray for your input on many of these subject matters. I know your job isn’t an easy one.

Karen

 

[Minimor]

"inappropriate"--yes, that is a much better word.

As I said, inferior isn't the word I would use, but it's a word some seem to like. Really, though, by calling these horses inferior, it's not saying anything, either, for others that these "inferior" horses show against & often win over.

Rather than inferior, they are inappropriate for NSPR and perhaps for ASPC competition. They aren't even eligible for ASPR registration unless they are registered Shetlands.

 

[txminipinto]

\

All this talk about and pointing fingers at horses that seem to be inferior. Keep in mind that I wouldn't personally use the word "inferior" to describe them, but that's how some want to call them, so that is the word I will use here. Perhaps some of these horses are inferior when it comes to competing in the Shetland ring, and perhaps some of them are inferior when it comes to competing as a National Show Pony, but a good many of them are WINNING in the AMHR ring. So, I ask you this--when you have inferior ponies winning AMHR classes, what does that say about things???

\

Who said that the ASPC ponies showing as AMHR minis were inferior? I have 3 in my barn for training. 1 has 2 HOFs in AMHR and ASPC halter, 1 is well on his way, and the other is just getting started. Showing ASPC ponis as AMHR minis is just the same as showing my ASPC ponies as Hunter or Pleasure ponies in Pinto. It's another avenue to show and promote your horse.

Oh and as far as the arguement that the little ponies can't beat the bigger ponies. That's a load of BS. My over ponies get beat regularly by double registered ponies.

 

[midnight star stables]

Desiree, it appears we were typing at the same time. I think I addressed most of your same issues in my reply above. All I can say is, I'm sorry you have spent so much money on a foal that you yourself consider inferior. Your words, not mine.

We all have opinions and concerns. Yours is as valid as mine. And vise-versa.

True fully, yes. I would consider my grade foal out of Multiple Champion bloodlines on BOTH sides worthless if she had no papers. What am I supposed to do with a horse created to be my ultimate MINIATURE show horse that I am no longer able to show? I'd have a small pony with no papers. What would YOU do with a paperless pony?

And again I don't feel a mini could compete against a Show Pony. I did not want to breed a show pony. I bred a MINIATURE HORSE.

Just a little sour grapes. I'm not upset with YOU

 

[muffntuf]

Ashley, I REALLY AM trying to understand your rationale, and not just be arguementive. BUT, you have again overlooked several points. First of all, as I mentioned, almost everyone agrees that there needs to be some tweaking, like extending the deadline farther than 2011. Maybe 2012 or even 2015.

 

Secondly, the way you state it, the only value in your filly is in her registration papers. She would be eligible for the Show Pony registry. IF you feel she is so inferior that she would not fit there, perhaps she should be culled from the gene pool anyway.

 

Thirdly, it appears (the way you have stated it) that the lable on your stallion is more important than what he actually is. You would not have to change your breeding program, but your breeding program could possibly have a different lable on it.

 

AND, that is why we are in this mess to begin with. The originators wanted them to APPEAR to be smaller than they actually are. I think it is time correct that mistake.

'

I totally disagree - she maybe eligible for the Show Pony Registry - but she will not be able to compete. As it stands, the ASPR registry follows most of the Modern Pony rules and if you haven't seen a Modern Pony move - you do not understand that your statement is in error. Even my Classic ponies cannot compete under the current rules as and ASPR pony, even though they are eligible to be registered.

NOW - if you want to start sending in rule proposals and changes - that will take many years to complete the ASPR section - then they really cannot compete - I DID NOT SAY they couldn't be registered - they cannot compete. So please re-assess your comments about "They can go to the ASPR registry".

Thanks!