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

[muffntuf]

It can be amended at the time of discussion if the person is present (or by phone, which happened last year on a proposal). I am still looking to see if the on the phone is allowed.

 

[REO]

No, I understood that before. I guess my way of thinking is..Taller horses *usually* have taller withers (no, not all) but most. So very few would actually BE taller. And how would you (in general) who have a smaller size breeding programs be affected by those that were slightly taller at their backs because they had small withers? I mean, if someone takes pride in their under 34" or under 32" or under 30" breeding programs, why would what other people do affect YOU? Why would that change? (you in general LOL) I have my program with what I like and what other people chose to do is fine with me, even if it's not what I do. I guess I don't understand why some, knowing it would affect & hurt many, push for something that doesn't affect them one way or the other. All could be cleared up IMO if the current rules of measuring at shows were ENFORCED. The only ones hurt then would be the taller outsized horses.

I've had my say and I'm glad I did,

even if no one cares about my opinion.

 

[Minimor]

Let me explain for myself what I mean and quit accusing me of something I did not say. Their have been previous posts on this thread where OWNERS of small Shetlands have said that their horses just could not compete in the Shetland classes. That was not me. I was simply making reference to their posts.

Yes, I know--they said their horses could not compete as Shetlands, and you turned that into their horses being INFERIOR. I did not misquote you at all--you are the one that introduced that word inferior!
I have a pony that is Foundation. He has done very well as a Foundation gelding; he wouldn't do as well in Classic--but that doesn't make him inferior, that just means he is a different type. I have country pleasure type horses and I have pleasure driving type horses...the first isn't inferior to the second, even though the first wouldn't do so well in a pleasure driving class....they're just different! My western type Morgans would have been also-rans in a Park horse class, while my park type gelding would have looked silly in western pleasure...is one inferior to the other since they would be non-competitive if they swapped divisions? No.

And quite frankly I could care less if you respect me or not; I lost ALL respect for you the moment that you made "non-competitive" into "inferior".

I don't see that increasing the size and measuring at the withers would overall increase size in the breed. In most cases horses wouldn't be any taller then than they are now--because already people are breeding 38" at the last mane hair, which means these horses are likely to be 39 or 40" at the withers--so by increasing height to 39" or 40" at TOTW, you're not going to get too many extra horses--other than some that are taller with mutton withers that would currently measure 39" at the last mane hairs...and I'd bet that there are already plenty of those being used for breeding anyway!

 

[horsehug]

Robin (REO)

I agreed with you before and I still do.

I am against changing it. If it sets our little horses apart, that is fine with me, as I think they are special and unique in so many ways, and I am proud of that!

Susan O.

 

[LaVern]

REO

Posted Today, 01:51 PM

Freeland, I said if AMHA followed suit. In AMHA you can't say so what, they'll just be Bs now. They're out.

Speaking in general and not to anyone specific:

I don't understand why raising the height two inches is so bad. READ CAREFULLY THE FOLLOWING.

If I have a 10 year old mare that is 32" at the last mane hairs, and it is changed to measure at the top of the withers, and she is now "34". Her height wasn't raised! She's the same horse. She's the same height she always was. She didn't grow. If the height was raised 2" they would still be the same horses, the same height they already were. So how is that raising the height and letting bigger horses in? If it measures within the limit HONESTLY no matter where it's measured, then what's the big deal about raising the height to allow for the withers? That is allowing for the withers on the same horse, not allowing a taller horse in.

If you have breeding horses that are grandfathered in, but are now thought of as "over", what happens when you want to sell them? No one will want to buy them. That's what I'm talking about.

The people that push for it are the people that won't be affected or will be affected the least. But MANY people will be hurt, devastated or wiped out. It may not happen right away but it would happen and the outward ripple would be huge. (In AMHR but mostly in AMHA)I was trying to make people think. Because it may not happen to you, doesn't mean it won't happen to other people. I care not only for myself, I also care about everyone who love these special smaller equine.

I'm not speaking against people, I'm trying to make people think. You can't think only of "let's do this" you also need to think of "what will happen in the long run IF we do this?"

Do this without raising the height to allow for the withers, you devastate many people and horses. Do it and allow for the withers (raise height) the horses did not magically get taller!

You never see me speaking "in public" this way. I'm shy and it scares me. But this time I had to speak.

My response from above quote.

I don't think many in AMHR dare say Just a B anymore.

 

[Sandee]

......

........ 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.

...........

..................

The point is, NO ONE IS BEING KICKED OUT.

Don't those two statements go against each other. Ok so you're not "kicking" them out but and yet you are leaving them no place to show.

My "B", and other small Shetlands, can't compete in Shetland for the same reason 32" horses really can't compete against 34" , in general. Judges are looking for more action or better build and these smaller guys don't, again -usually, have it.

 

[REO]

Aw no LaVern! I meant that as something *some* people would say. Not ME though, I LOVE the Bs!

I was just telling a friend the other day how much I loved them.

So sorry. I know you don't like it said that way. I was demonstrating who some people's attitudes are. Forgive me please!

I admire those who try to improve things. I'm not speaking against that. But I'm just trying to make people see the bad that would, in the everyday lives of people and their horses, happen because of the actions of good intentioned people that they might not have thought of.

 

[Capall Beag IRL]

Here in Ireland we have very recently started our own stud book - ALL minia are measured on the withers - including the AMHA ones that have been overstamped into our stud book.

this is causing great problems with showing in Ireland with a number of AMHA horses being over height for our classes but the owners still enter them and then give you heck if you speak up against it.

it will make things so much easier if ALL minis are measured on the withers

 

[HGFarm]

I think if they are going to change the place of measurement from the current standards that have been in place for years, the inches allowed should be adjusted to be consistant with what has been bred for in the past.

Some flat backed horses dont have a lot of difference but I have seen many who had a difference of up to 2" in height measuring in the two different ways.

 

[LaVern]

REO You are forgiven. I have been know to let the dreaded J word slip a time or two also.

 

[Belinda]

Bob

Just to correct my earlier post to you , and as of Yet I have still not recieved my packet from the office, But yes there is a proposal to measure at the base of the wither ????? So just thought I would retract my statement before everyone thought I was crazy !!!! <LOL>> Oh wait we all know I am crazy , LOL <<

But anyway I am at a show trying to make a living this weekend so you all have a great discussion and remember PLAY NICE !!

 

[Songcatcher]

.

I've had my say and I'm glad I did,

even if no one cares about my opinion.

Robin, the other points in your post have allready been commented on by others, so I will skip them. I just want to say that you have as much right to express your opinions here as anyone else, whether anyone else cares about it or agrees with you or not. I see some of your points. Some I agree with and some I don't. I still respect you either way.

 

[REO]

Thank you Freeland

And thanks to the people who PMed and emailed me. Not all people will ever agree on everything, but it's nice to know some feel the same way I do!

 

[Sue_C.]

Here in Ireland we have very recently started our own stud book - ALL minia are measured on the withers - including the AMHA ones that have been overstamped into our stud book.

this is causing great problems with showing in Ireland with a number of AMHA horses being over height for our classes but the owners still enter them and then give you heck if you speak up against it.

it will make things so much easier if ALL minis are measured on the withers

I must say this is very disappointing to hear.

So the new registry simply sat on the 34" maximum, even tho' they measure at the whithers? That is too bad...this new registry had a chance to get it right...and didn't take it, instead, KNOWINGLY punishing horses that are officially safe under AMHA rules, that people have, I am sure, spent a lot of money importing from North America. Personally, I would be one of those entering my "over" horses, and would continue to fight this new registry until my registered horses were recognised. You guys are only hurting yourseves by having done this.

 

[midnight star stables]

Desiree, do you mean specifically the Modern shetlands, or just "modern type" as in any Shetland? Because it isn't just the Modern Shetlands that have high withers. I know a few Arenosas, who are Classic ponies through and through (not to mention they are also AMHR and come from several generations of AMHR registered ponies), that have very prominent withers, and they have 2" difference in height between last mane hair and top of withers. Some that measure 38" as AMHR measure 40" or 40.25" when they are measured as a pony...so anyone that is breeding those horses and getting foals of a similar height is going to be out of luck starting in 2011 if this rule change goes through as it is. Some of these horses are owned by some very prominent breeders--while I don't have that particular breeding in my ponies, I think it will be kind of a shame to see some of those horses disappear from AMHR in terms of breeding. And I do feel bad for those breeders who may suddenly and unexpectedly find themselves with some unregistrable foals--foals they might not have bred for in some cases had they known that the height limit was going to drop so drastically in 2011.

I just wanted to clarify, that I said Moderns particularly because they usually have the highest withers. The conformation that allows for them to move so extreme, often has a high set wither. I know this is not always the case, and I do agree that this rule will have a huge impact on ALL horses, especially the large B size ones.

 

[Capall Beag IRL]

Hi Sue C

at shows in Ireland there ARE NO AMHA shows, so no AMHA rules.

all of our shows ( for all sizes of horses) are measured on the withers

some of these horses have been bought as mature horses - so they knew buying them that they were too tall

so thats like saying at an AMHA show in the USA that someone with a AMHR horse who is 35" tall should be allowed to show in AMHA classes at 34"

and the rules should be adjusted to suit those who do - we do have classes for these horses but its called a section B class 34"-38" on the withers

and if an AMHA horse is re-registered in the new Irish stud book then they agree to abid by all of our rules - if they dont like it they dont

have to join, they have that choice. Our stud book is overseen by the Irish government so things have to be handled properly.

and we like to think of it as getting the balance right, with all the other socities all over the world having their own problems

after all minis are a height breed and if you cant get that right then your just wasting everybodies time and money

 

[Sue_C.]

we do have classes for these horses but its called a section B class 34"-38" on the withers

Ahhh, but you didn't clarify that in your original post. I (we) were left to think that these horses would lose all rights to any registration, and couldn't be shown...which is CLEARLY a different matter.

Our stud book is overseen by the Irish government so things have to be handled properly.

Good Lord, that's ALL we need, the Governments nose into our business; a bunch of beurocrats who don't know a horse from a hole in the ground, telling us how to manage our horses... I cannot ever seeing that being successful here. North America is just too big to be Departmentalized, for our horses/farms/stables run that way. It would cost a FORTUNE to manage, what with such a large area and so many people and horses to monitor...O-M-G-!

Just had to mention this too, from your site.

we do not use an AMHA stallion so we are free from the many known genetic defects associated with these miniature horses,including deafness & dwarfism, to name but two.

already a number of dwarf minis have been bred in Ireland by AMHA stallions.

these serious known genetic faults are currently being discussed by the American breeders/owners & it is believed that at least 50% of American Miniature horses are carriers of these genes.

please read this

after the recent lecture given by John Eberth to the AMHA.

dont take our word for it - read it for yourself

I find it odd that you think only the AMHA/AMHR STALLIONS carry dwarfism? You do have at least one AMHA/AMHR mare...what if SHE carries it. and...to infer that 50% of the American miniatures carry this gene is IMO, very far-fetched. If it were so, we would have a heck of a lot more dwarves born to our horses. Thankfully, none of them born on my farm. I for one, take HUGE offence.

 

[~Lisa~]

This thread has gotten so off topic so I apologize for continuing that but I am curious.. all the litle ponies we see in Europe be they shetlands.. or whatever you would like to call them..the tiny horses the same size as our minis.. do you not have dwarfisim over there when breeding them?

I never really even thought about it before

 

[Sue_C.]

do you not have dwarfisim over there when breeding them?

I would be very surprised to hear there hasn't been...many of the ones I remember seeing years ago showed signs of it, very short stumpy legs, long backs, very short thick necks, HUGE heads...I have seen a vast improvement, but there had to be dwarves. Maybe it just isn't as open a topic there, as it is becoming here.

 

[dinno28]

I decided to do a little research into horses measured as a shetland (totw) and as an AMHR miniature (LMH). Information was gathered from the Sale of the Century listing link and can be viewed at http://www.whirlwindproduction.com/auction/century/

20 animals were measured as both a miniature and as a shetland by AMHR/ASPC President Larry Parnell. Measurements were in full view of the public and webcast live online, Several board members were also in attendance. The largest difference in measurement was 3 inches

(lot 1 Wall Street Rock E The Rock totw- 40.25, lmh-37.25, and lot #20 Wall Street Rock E Rock on totw-41", lmh-38")and the smallest difference in measurement was .75" (lot #38 Wall Street Rock E Rock on Lisa E totw-38", lmh-37.25").

Of the 20 animals legally measured and eligible for AMHR registration only 5 would measure 38 or under if the proposed charge were to go into effect. The average ASPC measurement was 39.0375(totw) and the average AMHR measurement was 37.425(lmh) with an average difference of 1.6125".

horses/ponies are listed below with the first measurement being top of the withers and second measurement being the last mane hair:

lot 1 Wall Street ROck E The Rock 40.25" totw, 37.25" lmh

lot 5 Michigan's Distinct Image 39.5" totw, 38" lmh

lot 6 Wall Street Navigator's First Shot 37" totw, 35.25" lmh

lot 8 Wall Street Rock E Red Red Hot 39" totw, 37.75" lmh

lot 9 Red Rock Kids Sweet Tooth 39.5" totw, 38" lmh

lot 20 Wall Street Rock E Rock On 41" totw, 38" lmh

lot 23 Wall Street Illsions Rainy Day 39.75" totw, 38" lmh

lot 31 Wall Street Illusion's Onyx 39.5" totw, 38" lmh

lot 35 Colorful Miss Wiser 38" totw, 36.75" lmh

lot 37 Wa-Full Betty Boop 38" totw, 36.25" lmh

lot 38 Wall Street Rock E Rock on Lisa E 38" totw, 37.25" lmh

lot 42 Rhapsody's Merry Madonna 39.5" totw, 37.75" lmh

lot 44 Rhapsody In Red 39" totw, 37.25" lmh

lot 47 Wall Street Rock E Rockstar 38.5" totw, 37.5" lmh

lot 50 Rhapsody's Bound For Glory 39.25" totw, 38" lmh

lot 61 Vermilyea Farms Good as Gold 38" totw, 37" lmh

lot 65 Mccalls Lucky Lady Cody 39.25" totw, 37" lmh

lot 75 Wall Street Head's Up Phantom 39.5" totw, 38" lmh

lot 84 Wall Street Rock E Harryetta Potter 39" totw, 37.5" lmh

lot 87 Wall Street Illusion Chrystal Charmed 39.5" totw, 37.5" lmh

Unless there is an adjustment to our current height divisions (ie 36"-40" for the over division, and 36" and under for the under division) I cannot support this proposal. From this sample we would we would be shrinking the average miniature height by 1.6"

At a time when our registry is operating in the red and new registrations are significantly down. Passing a proposal that would strongly discourage the breeding of mares and stallions that currently legally measure 36.5"-38" can not be seen as fiscally responsible. Not to mention the reduction in the genetic pool.