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

[kaykay]

Great post Getitia. I have not seen the proposal (maybe someone can post it?) But I just dont think its doable until all these questions are addressed.

Do you think that AMHA will care that the AMHA horse has an AMHR "oversize" national title? .....

This has been a huge issue in the past so we need to really think this over.

 

[RhineStone]

I think some people are making this WAY more difficult than it needs to be. I don't see 35" horses at the withers as "oversize". To me (hypothetically) 34" at the last hairs of the mane is (or could be) 35" at the withers.

34" = last hairs

35" = withers

The horse hasn't changed size, the "rules" have. It's still the same horse.

In the future, the breed wouldn't think of taller than 34" being the Over division. It might become 35" as the Over division.

Or....maybe scrap the A & B altogether and design it more like the Welsh do. Every miniature would have a "value", because one size wouldn't be any more valuable than any other size. Let their talent/show record speak to their "value". Break the "sizes" into (at the withers) 30" and under, over 30" to 35", over 35" to 40". (Why are A horses considered more valuable than Bs anyway? Isn't that doing a total disservice to the breed as a whole? Are smaller Welsh considered more valuable than bigger ones?)

Each horse should be measured (at the withers) and shown in a class against it's own size horses, not what it's papers say it is. You wouldn't have a 32" horse against a 36" horse unless the class is designed for that.

If I show at an ADS show, my 37" (at the last hairs, 37 1/2" at the withers) horse has to go in the 39" and under VSE division UNLESS there is no VSE division. Then, he is a Small Pony. Some shows don't even have a Small Pony division, they just have Pony. You go in what is offered.

As far as Grandfathered, I see that meaning "if your horse is suddenly too tall for the registry, keep your papers anyway," not "this is the class you would show in". The horse should still be measured for the class and shown against it's own size horses.

Not rocket science.

 

[~Lisa~]

A whole lot of things, I can't answer, but this one is easy. You explain it the same way you now explain the difference in measurement in AMHR/ASPC, with Pony measurement and Miniature measurement. It would be A measurement and R measurement. Hopefully AMHA would get on board and change their method also.

Now that is logical

 

[midnight star stables]

Great post Getitia. I have not seen the proposal (maybe someone can post it?) But I just dont think its doable until all these questions are addressed.

This has been a huge issue in the past so we need to really think this over.

Yes, when the horses were being measured the SAME way.....

But we know how differently horses can measure from day to day. I don't see the issue.

 

[OhHorsePee]

Oh what the heck!

Of course this would blow our breeding program all to heck and back and I am sure we wouldn't be the only ones. We have discussed promoting geldings so the mindset of 3 to 4 years and they are out is moot. Besides that if you breed the ones that grandfather in their offspring will be the same height. But of course if you have mostly AMHA herd and you want to come over to AMHR with them then that puts you at an advantage and screws the rest of us in AMHR/ASPC. Three years ago I wouldn't have believed this could happen. Seeing what we all have these last few years should tell us all something.

 

[~Lisa~]

Well Fran.... Not sure how AMHA horses coming in to AMHR would screw the rest of us they will be measured the same way? But I must be missing the point there

- When you have been to Convention you hear many things that are proposed and honestly my mind has been changed when I was sure it wouldnt be when hearing discussion during the committee meetings.

A proposal does not mean anything will happen and the talk of measuring at the withers has been around for many years this is nothing new nothing sinister. It is simply a proposal

 

[ruffian]

"Or....maybe scrap the A & B altogether and design it more like the Welsh do. Every miniature would have a "value", because one size wouldn't be any more valuable than any other size. Let their talent/show record speak to their "value". Break the "sizes" into (at the withers) 30" and under, over 30" to 35", over 35" to 40". (Why are A horses considered more valuable than Bs anyway? Isn't that doing a total disservice to the breed as a whole? Are smaller Welsh considered more valuable than bigger ones?)"

The whole concept originally of the "miniature horse" was to have the smallest, most perfect, most horse-like equine. So IMO that means that the "A" size would be more valuable as it is harder to get top quality in the smaller sizes. Comparing the miniature horse to a Welsh isn't logical as they are used for completely different things, against different standards. The founders of the AMHA & AMHR wanted to get a tiny, perfect horse, and it can be done - look at LK Buck Echo - 28" of perfection!

"Each horse should be measured (at the withers) and shown in a class against it's own size horses, not what it's papers say it is. You wouldn't have a 32" horse against a 36" horse unless the class is designed for that.

"

This would depend on if there are size splits at the show. Many local shows only have 34" and under, over 34 to 38". It's already difficult for the smaller horses (30", 29" even 32") to compete against the 33 1/2, 34" ones. Until the judges get on board with understanding that the smaller horse - of similar quality! - should win, it's going to keep people breeding for the top limits of the size class.

But I absolutely agree that miniatures should be measured at the withers - just figuring out all the options and caveats is going to be a challenge!!

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I guess its just me but I don't see the reasoning for raising the heights. Measuring to the withers is just another step in becoming a breed. The breed itself has evolved, this is just another hurdle, and its a necessary hurdle. How many people I have seen changed there breeding programs because the AMHR/ASPC horses are winning, some may need to change again, thats just the way it is. It looks like the older horses will be ok, and continue to do what we have been doing. If we have to breed smaller we can do that, we are suppose to have the smallest horses as it is. Also if you do raise the heights for the Bs you have to do it for the As. Its only fair. You don't want your 33" horse competing against a 38" horse (measuring to the last hair).

I don't see how it should interfere when it comes to AMHA. Its a whole different registry, it has their own rules, no big deal. Also this will help with AMHR overseas as they measure at the withers.

My only concern is we don't want to rush this, we really need to go thru this proposal carefully, which is why I have said is 2011 too soon.

 

[RhineStone]

The founders of the AMHA & AMHR wanted to get a tiny, perfect horse, and it can be done - look at LK Buck Echo - 28" of perfection!

But in the mean time, other people started asking, "What do you do with them?" If the breed association wants to be all about little, then scrap the performance arenas. Bigger horses should have as much value as little ones. Otherwise, the associations should have a 28" limit.

I still don't get why people think it is actually raising the height limits. It's not, just raising where you measure to and accounting for the difference.

I also don't understand why people think that little horses will be shown against bigger horses because they would be measured differently than they are now. Why would you not put them in their own height class? Yes, some shows only offer X amount of classes, but how does that change anything based on where you measure them at?

I don't understand the confusion.

 

[Minimor]

Rhinestone--did you read Belinda's post? The show horses aren't all going to be measured the same way. If this rule change goes through, 5 years from now you could have a harness class with the 2011 foals being measured at the withers, giving them a maximum height of 38" for the over division. In the same class will be the 2009 or 2010 foals that will be grandfathered in, which means that they will still be measured the old way--at the last mane hair. So some of those 2009 or 2010 foals may be measuring in at 38" at the last mane hair, which could mean they are 39" or even closer to 40" at the top of the withers. Thus, there will be some bigger horses showing in the 38" and under class.

Because this proposal doesn't include increasing the size to allow for the difference between top of withers and last mane hair, it does mean that the Minis will actually have to be smaller in order to be registered. The 38" at the top of the withers horse may be only 37" or 36" at the last mane hair...so it is changing the size of the breed overall.

 

[OhHorsePee]

Well Fran.... Not sure how AMHA horses coming in to AMHR would screw the rest of us they will be measured the same way? But I must be missing the point there

- When you have been to Convention you hear many things that are proposed and honestly my mind has been changed when I was sure it wouldnt be when hearing discussion during the committee meetings.

A proposal does not mean anything will happen and the talk of measuring at the withers has been around for many years this is nothing new nothing sinister. It is simply a proposal

Well Lisa.... I have absolutely nothing against AMHA people. Their horses would be the only ones that would measure in if this proposal would make it. And we all know if certain people want it, it will happen. Right or not.......wanted by the members or not...... And I think my post was pretty clear.

 

[alphahorses]

If we have to breed smaller we can do that, we are suppose to have the smallest horses as it is.

AMHA considers smaller horses to be of more value, NOT AMHR. There are a lot of us who have no interest in raising smaller horses and intentionally breed for "B" size. To some, 30" is a perfect horse. To me, 37-38" is perfect. That is the beauty of this registry - there is a place for everyone.

some may need to change again, thats just the way it is.

I find it sad how quick people are to disgard the interests of others. The adjustement in breeding programs that you are talking about with ASPC/AMHR horse is partly a QUALITY and partly a TYPE change. Qualty changes should always be our goal. Types come and go, but your horses are not disqualified because they are not of the ASPC/AMHR TYPE.

This is totally different. This is a rule change that would eventually disqualify an entire group of horses, or at least their offspring. There are a lot of small breeders whose entire herds will no longer qualify for AMHR. Let's consider the breed - and other people - in this decision. Some good discussion and suggestions have come out of this thread. Let's not be so quick to just say "oh well" to the life savings, time, dedication, and even love, that have gone into other people's breeding programs.

 

[Songcatcher]

I always knew it was true. Some people breed for the "smallest possible horse" and some people breed for the tallest horse they can possibly squeeze in to the registry. I guess it's natural that everyone will push for their own goals.

 

[alphahorses]

I always knew it was true. Some people breed for the "smallest possible horse" and some people breed for the tallest horse they can possibly squeeze in to the registry. I guess it's natural that everyone will push for their own goals.

Yes - so let's start taking other people's goals into consideration, and stop just thinking about ourselves (and that starts by leaving out unnecesary comments about people "squeezing" tall horses into the registry. I've seen horses squeezed into all height divisions).

1. People who raise small horses have a point - their horses are less marketable if they now have to advertise them as 31" instead of 30". It is confussing if they have one height for AMHA and another for AMHR.

2. People who raise taller horses do not want their horses disqualified or their offspring disqualified (call it whatever you want, but even if you grandfather a tall horse in for registration and show purposes, you have disqualified them as a breeding animal because their offspring will likely be over).

3. The standard measurement for all other horses is at the withers, not at the last hair.

These are all VALID concerns.

I agree that we should have measured from the withers from the beginning instead of trying to make horses sound smaller than they really are by measuring at the last hair. That ship has sailed. I personally would like to see them measured at the withers in the future, but can live with measuring at the last hair. If we are going to do this, we need to find a way to take everyone's concerns into account, or we need to leave things as is.

 

[JWC sr.]

It amazes me every time this subject comes up how negative some folks can get, bottom line is for all of us that do Mini's is that if we ever want to be accepted by the majority of the equine world then we need to change the way we measure our horses. Whatever it takes to get in step with the other breeds, in my opinion is worth the hassle.

Yes there are some inherent problems with making the change, but if that is what needs to happen for the betterment of the breed from my standpoint so be it. I personally like the bigger horses, but Cindy likes the little guys so we do all three ASPC/AMHR/AMHA to satisfy the needs we each have.

Adjustment of the height seems to make sense so as not to penalize the current B size taller horses(that I love), but then again if I need to readjust my breeding program I can and will in order to get things into perspective.

It really gets tiring answering the question of why we do not measure our mini's to the top of the withers from new folks just entering the industry. And it makes us look pretty silly when we try to explain it to them.

My honest suggestion to the BOD and members attending the National meeting is to look at what is best for the industry as a whole, not what is in our best personal interest!! That has gone on too many times in the past.

Bottom line it is a tough position to be in, but it is one of our own making back when the founding fathers of both AMHA & AMHR decided to use this method of measuring to make their horses appear smaller than they really were, merely for marketing concerns.

 

[~Lisa~]

Well Lisa.... I have absolutely nothing against AMHA people. Their horses would be the only ones that would measure in if this proposal would make it. And we all know if certain people want it, it will happen. Right or not.......wanted by the members or not...... And I think my post was pretty clear.

LOL again not sure what you mean... I have B AMHR horses that would measure in even if they decided not to grandfather in the horses previous to 2011. I am sure there are plenty of AMHR B horses and AMHR A horses who would still remain in size. I am confident in the fact that if this proposal passes those AMHA horses coming into AMHR WILL NOTBE THE ONLY ONES THAT WILL MEASURE IN

Your post was clear on one thing you seem to be sure sinister things are going on in AMHR/ASPC which of course I do not agree with

Do I agree with every decision- nope but then again I usually do not have all the facts either. I shouldnt agree with every decision it is not the Lisa registry and for as many that disagree with a decision there is equally as many that do agree. No one decision will please everyone

Again if you go to Convention and hear the discussion in the committee meetings you will see more often then not in fact the majority of the time.. The proposals that pass or fail in the board meeting are voted the same way they were in committee meetings by general membership

John I agree I think it makes us look silly. I have been asked just recently why we measure this way and the response (from the big horse people 2 of whom were judges and trainers) Oh so you can fool yourself and others into thinking they are smaller then they are... my only answer to her was....umm ya pretty much I guess lol

 

[OhHorsePee]

LOL again not sure what you mean... I have B AMHR horses that would measure in even if they decided not to grandfather in the horses previous to 2011. I am sure there are plenty of AMHR B horses and AMHR A horses who would still remain in size. I am confident in the fact that if this proposal passes those AMHA horses coming into AMHR WILL NOTBE THE ONLY ONES THAT WILL MEASURE IN

Your post was clear on one thing you seem to be sure sinister things are going on in AMHR which of course I do not agree with

Again if you go to Convention and hear the discussion in the committee meetings you will see more often then not in fact the majority of the time.. The proposals that pass or fail in the board meeting are voted the same way they were in committee meetings by general membership

This is suppose to be a discussion not a personal fight. When you came back from Convention wanting to hire a lawyer no one accused you of being paranoid. Now keep it a discussion please...... I guess I shouldn't have used the word 'only" either. If my word of "only" upset anyone I apologize.

Is there a way that we can get a copy of the proposal on here so we can all have an informed discussion about what will ACTUALLY be proposed not what someone thinks will be proposed?

 

[Jacki Loomis]

I have not seen the proposal so I am not expressing an opinion about it but do have some questions and a comment to share.

Where can we obtain a copy of this proposal?

Who is the author(s) and/or presenters of this proposal?

Comment: We have/had horses of various breeds, AQHA, Appaloosa, Pinto, Paint, POA, ASPC, AMHR, AMHA. My husband and our family have world and national titles in all and have exported horses around the world since the 1970s. I share this to give you an idea of the breadth of our experience and the volume and variety of contacts we have. In all of our dealings with customers and colleagues I've never been asked to explain why we measure where we do!

I hear some saying our measuring method makes us look silly or that other associations look down on us. I have never found this to be true, it is a non-issue in my opinion. Our method of measuring is an association rule and should only be altered if/when the majority of the members deem it would be a benefit to our members and our association. What other associations and breeds do or don't do is their business, what we do or don't do should be our members business.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]

 

[Songcatcher]

It seems that a person cannot take a neutral position without getting jumped on by both sides.

Songcatcher, on 14 July 2010 - 08:46 AM, said:
I always knew it was true. Some people breed for the "smallest possible horse" and some people breed for the tallest horse they can possibly squeeze in to the registry. I guess it's natural that everyone will push for their own goals.

Yes - so let's start taking other people's goals into consideration, (I thought that was what I was doing when I said, "I guess it's natural that everyone will push for their own goals." and stop just thinking about ourselves (and that starts by leaving out unnecesary comments about people "squeezing" tall horses into the registry. Like it or not, that is what happens in BOTH AMHA and AMHR. It is a fact whether you like the term or not. I've seen horses squeezed into all height divisions). See, you used the term too.
1. People who raise small horses have a point - their horses are less marketable if they now have to advertise them as 31" instead of 30". Are we agreeing that smaller horses are more valuable?

I happen to be one of those who strive to breed for under 30 (even though it doesn't always happen). So what? They are what they are. I'm not interested in trying to make them appear smaller than they actually are. I am trying to BREED for the "smallest correctly proportioned horse", not just try to make it appear that way. It is confussing if they have one height for AMHA and another for AMHR. No more so than two different measurements for AMHR and ASPC, and they are the SAME registry. Besides, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm hoping AMHA will get on board and make the change also. Then, AMHA, AMHR, and ASPC would all measure the same as the rest of the horse world.

2. People who raise taller horses do not want their horses disqualified or their offspring disqualified (call it whatever you want, but even if you grandfather a tall horse in for registration and show purposes, you have disqualified them as a breeding animal because their offspring will likely be over). Again, that is spoken from the point of someone who wants to raise the tallest possible horse they can get registered (was that worded any better?). Are we talking about what is best for the breed or what is best for the breeder? (OF COURSE THE TWO SHOULD GO HAND IN HAND WITHOUT BEING AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER) How is this any different from the earlier designation of "Foundation Oversize" in regards to being less valuable? That designation allowed taller horses to keep their registration while working toward the goal of producing the "smallest correctly proportioned horse.

3. The standard measurement for all other horses is at the withers, not at the last hair. That is one fact that I'm glad we all recognize.

These are all VALID concerns.

I agree that we should have measured from the withers from the beginning instead of trying to make horses sound smaller than they really are by measuring at the last hair. I would like to see them measured at the withers in the future. But if we are going to do this, we need to find a way to take everyone's concerns into account, or we need to leave things as is. Again, we agree. Not sure why I got jumped on.

 

[alphahorses]

It seems that a person cannot take a neutral position without getting jumped on by both sides.

Actually, I was agreeing with most of what you said - except for the comment about people trying to "squeeze" in horses which could be taken as implying people are somehow trying to cheat. I wanted to point out that both small and tall breeders have valid points and we need to think as one organization without considering one size horse better than the other.

I'm sorry if you felt jumped on.