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

[Devon]

Tell me this why does anyone feel that measuring at the wither is such a good way?Other then that's horse every other breed does it.. Every other breed is differant they are not height breeds.. Does that reflect an animals height ? I don't feel it does its just a high spot on the back that every horse has.. a horses height to me is their back where there is nothing that differs from horse to horse.. Why do you really feel that the wither would be so great its probably more unfair then the last hair etleast that goes down the back and reflects the horses height.This is now conformation coming into play :s

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Section III Part 3 (Page 40) - An animal measured out as a Shetland but desiring to compete in ASPR as a result of that measurement may apply for registration at a sanctioned show with an ASPC/AMHR licensed Steward and is eligible to

compete once application is completed and fee paid to said official.

Here is the officil Eligibility for ASPR ponies:

Section VIII Part I (page 164)

Part 1 – Eligibility

Any pony that is registered with the American Shetland Pony Club, the Hackney Horse Society or any pony that is the

result of the mating of a registered Shetland and a registered Hackney Pony, any pony that is the result of the mating of a

registered Shetland and a registered American Show Pony, any pony that is the result of the mating of a registered Hackney

and a registered American Show Pony, or any pony that is the result of the mating of a registered American Show Pony to an

American Show Pony is eligible to be recorded in the stud book of the ASPR upon the completion of an application for

registration and submission of the appropriate fee.

Unless you have an extreme modern, you will never be able to compete under current rules. At Area III, I took my shetland who carries ASPC and ASPR and NSPR papers to show. He is truely a modern pleasure. For two years now I have shown him against full blooded hackney ponies. Not enough leg action to win, but he is very competitive. Again this division would have to be expanded. I know there was a proposal to add a pleasure halter division to all equal competition.

Now if someone was to come against my 46 inch MP with a AMHR only "over" pony/mini, they would say no fair, difference in entries would be like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

I forgot to mention that the NSPR only offers 3 classes at Congress. 1 driving class, 1 english riding class and 1 western riding class. No halter classes.

 

[muffntuf]

MMMm - I have shown for 2 years and do show a MP Stallion in ASPR as well and we do fine, Grands and Reserves, I believe they can be competitive. JMHO.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

MMMm - I have shown for 2 years and do show a MP Stallion in ASPR as well and we do fine, Grands and Reserves, I believe they can be competitive. JMHO.

Ah, but do you show against Dr. Wahl? Ha ha. Proud to have taken second to him in amateur incentive. Even his son Mike took my MP against his dad and got beat by Heartlands March to Victory. I chalked it up to a good experience.

Just glad I didn't have to go against Ken-Mars Special Attraction (Andy).

 

[Yaddax3]

I will echo what others have asked:

Can we please see the proposal, or be told of its contents?

Belinda appears to have knowledge of the proposal's contents. So, Belinda, can you please explain the proposal as it is submitted instead of leaving us to guess? You brought up the grandfathering option. Is that in the proposal?

Also, is it protocol to give anonymity to people who make proposals until the proposal is delivered at Convention? I have a hard time believing the person making the proposal isn't scouring this thread to see what others are saying. So, I ask that they speak up and fill in the blanks.

This thread is approaching double digits for pages and most of us still are in the dark about what's in the proposal. Give us some illumination here.

 

[muffntuf]

Crabtree - yeah I know you are in Ken and Mary's area, I still have yet to win against them with any of my ASPR ponies in halter, but hey - I am always working towards that goal! But I have shown against other ASPR ponies I consider to be in their caliber, this year there is one on our area circuit I keep coming in Reserve too, but he deserves the grands. I have only had one show we met up at that my MP was ticking at level, that pony is above level. So the better pony won! And then my poor MP went back to his MP class and had to unwire his attitude to show in MP. LOL!

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Crabtree - yeah I know you are in Ken and Mary's area, I still have yet to win against them with any of my ASPR ponies in halter, but hey - I am always working towards that goal! But I have shown against other ASPR ponies I consider to be in their caliber, this year there is one on our area circuit I keep coming in Reserve too, but he deserves the grands. I have only had one show we met up at that my MP was ticking at level, that pony is above level. So the better pony won! And then my poor MP went back to his MP class and had to unwire his attitude to show in MP. LOL!

If more people would have your attitude it would be great. One of these days I hope to beat 5r Wahl, and I plan on working on doing that.

Back to the thread, I doubt a AMHR pony would be very competitve in ASPR, though there are a few and I would love to have those ponies. Especially that pony that won the over the park class and I believe he is 38 or less in height. So ASPR would have to be revamped to include those over minis. I doubt it could happen. Again it looks like a "C" division. Imagine all those minis whose papers would be valid again. More $$$$ for the association.

 

[hobbyhorse23]

Myrna, I agree with you on almost everything you've said but if a grandfathered horse is still theoretically eligible to show based on holding papers with an under-at-the-last-mane-hair-measurement but measures over using the withers at the actual event, what division do you put it in?

Tell me this why does anyone feel that measuring at the wither is such a good way? Other then that's horse every other breed does it.. Every other breed is differant they are not height breeds.. Does that reflect an animals height ? I don't feel it does its just a high spot on the back that every horse has.. a horses height to me is their back where there is nothing that differs from horse to horse.. Why do you really feel that the wither would be so great its probably more unfair then the last hair etleast that goes down the back and reflects the horses height.This is now conformation coming into play :s

This is actually a very fair question and worth considering, Devon. (Bear with me, folks.) Ignoring the fact that "every other breed does it," why does every other breed do it that way? The withers truly are very different from horse to horse and can greatly affect the final height an individual horse measures just as the length of the mane can for our current measurement system. And true, the real "height" of the horse as we experience it from day to day is the height of the entire animal, i.e. the topline along the back and rump.

So starting from scratch, as if one of use were suddenly asked to decide how to measure a strange and unfamiliar animal like a camel, how would we do it?

Well, you really can't measure from the true highest point of the animal as that is the head and the height of that particular feature is more than a bit adjustable.

So we work down to the more stable back of the animal. We could measure at the rump but on most correctly built horses, that isn't (or shouldn't be) the highest point on the skeleton. That ought to be up at the shoulder. If you measure on the back itself, well, the vertebrae there are supported only by a system of muscles and ligaments and is not, in and of itself, a stable skeletal point even for that individual. Look at a sway-backed horse! Has he shrunk since he was younger? No. The shoulder and hip stand just as tall but the back has dropped dramatically in between. We must pick the tallest stable point of the horse if we are going to measure how tall the animal truly is, and that is the wither. The last mane hair meets the test for stability over a lifetime but it is not, in fact, the tallest stable point on the animal. Now granted for the minis it has turned into a consistent place to measure to generally indicate the height of the animal in comparison to other equines measured similarly, but why on earth did we pick it in the first place except to make the measurements sound smaller?

It is time to join the rest of the world and measure the tallest point of the animal when saying how tall they are. We don't measure people at the ears or the shoulders to say how tall we are; we measure to the top of the head because that's how tall we are. That's how tall a doorframe or shelf or anything else has to be so I don't bang my head on it. If you measure a horse at the back and use that to put a bar across his stall door, he won't be able to get in because he's going to bang his withers on it.

We aren't making our horses any bigger by measuring at the withers, in fact we'd be shrinking the breed if the height limits are not adjusted to match as only animals who truly ARE 34" and 38" at the tallest point would be showing. There are other competitions where height matters very much (look at hunter ponies!) and a lot is at stake if the horse doesn't measure under- they still measure at the withers because that's how tall the horse is. They can raise or lower their heads, tuck their rumps, etc., but short of standing spraddle-legged there's not much a horse can do to lower their withers. Raise them, yes, but not lower them! It's a good consistent point to measure.

Leia

P.S.- Just a point, those marketing minis for CDE are already listing both their breed height and withers height. It wouldn't be any harder to list AMHA height and AMHR height on an ad.

 

[muffntuf]

So Leia, how would you handle all the miniatures who will measure out of the registry if we hold to the 38" and under and do not hold an ASPC paper? I can only imagine the numbers of miniatures out there, and farms who have decided to breed B miniatures, could have many of their stock at risk of loosing their papers and their offspring could potentially be lost as well.

This is the conundrum I see, the biggest obstacle. And potentially a revenue loss for the registry in the long run.

 

[RhineStone]

Myrna, I agree with you on almost everything you've said but if a grandfathered horse is still theoretically eligible to show based on holding papers with an under-at-the-last-mane-hair-measurement but measures over using the withers at the actual event, what division do you put it in?

The tallest one. It totally isn't fair to those whose horses are borderline right now to take away their papers and show rights because we now measure differently. It is still the same horse. As someone has already mentioned, that seems like grounds for a lawsuit. They have paid their $$ as much as anyone else, why does the registry want to take that away? (BTW, this doesn't affect me at all right now, my AMHR horses are under that 38" limit regardless of where you measure them. I have the entire industry in mind.)

 

If it is a breeding animal, the breeder would have to take steps to breed down the horse for the offspring to fit into the registry, say, after a certain date. Someone already mentioned that 2011 horses are already bred, so it might have to be after that.

Why does every other breed do it that way? The withers truly are very different from horse to horse and can greatly affect the final height an individual horse measures just as the length of the mane can for our current measurement system.

Look at a sway-backed horse! Has he shrunk since he was younger? No. The shoulder and hip stand just as tall but the back has dropped dramatically in between. We must pick the tallest stable point of the horse if we are going to measure how tall the animal truly is, and that is the wither.

I can't imagine that the last hairs of the mane would be a stable point as the horse ages. I know that my sway backed gelding's harness saddle doesn't fit his withers nearly as well as it did, because the back of his withers are "raised". The top is still the same, but with the rest of the back dropping, this has to affect the last hairs of the mane, too.

It is time to join the rest of the world and measure the tallest point of the animal when saying how tall they are.

Yup.

We aren't making our horses any bigger by measuring at the withers, in fact we'd be shrinking the breed if the height limits are not adjusted to match as only animals who truly ARE 34" and 38" at the tallest point would be showing.

Raise them, yes, but not lower them! It's a good consistent point to measure.

Yup again. Even if the figure has to be 40" to cover every horse that might measure over, so be it. It truly IS NOT raising the height. IT IS STILL THE SAME HORSE REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU MEASURE IT! It would be just covering the bases for all who are already in the registry. What a crock that limiting the measurement to 38" at the withers will "kick out" a bunch of horses and their people!

Leia

P.S.- Just a point, those marketing minis for CDE are already listing both their breed height and withers height. It wouldn't be any harder to list AMHA height and AMHR height on an ad.

Very good point. CDE people have already adapted, so see....it can be done. The rest of the mini world can do it, too, with some time.

 

And if the breed associations do decide to eliminate horses from the registry, they can all come over to the ADS events and play!

 

Myrna

 

[Devon]

It's so frustrating to read;And sad for the money time and effort put into horses that are so safely AMHR height for the current rules and are now going to be kicked out; Thats fine for you who plan to just breed them but their get won't be able to show so whats the point? And what about a gelding I suppose there is no use for a nice amhr b gelding that is 36" and now 38.1/4". It is not fair to change it now; I understand the change and how much more accurate it is being something you cannot alter; but you cannot penalize the current horses .. It's not fair; you can change the rule but must account for whats currently being bred and I hope you allow those horses that are fairly amhr as to our current measuring system to show.

 

[R3]

One thing that I don’t think I’ve seen discussed yet is the potential impact this could have on other Miniature Horse organization, both in the U.S. and Internationally.

Although this measure is being discussed for AMHR, what happens in AMHR can be used as a precedent for what is done in AMHA, (and the same is true that what happens in AMHA is sometimes used as a precedent for AMHR). AMHR and AMHA are two distinct organizations, but they do tend to mirror each other in most all of the significant areas (other than the fact that AMHR has a second division for horses over 34” tall). I may be wrong, but I think that people are more comfortable with this than if the two organizations varied greatly in ‘how’ they did things.

Right now, AMHR and AMHA measure from the same spot, the last hair of the mane (LHOTM). If AMHR were to successfully change the spot to the ‘top’ of the withers (TOTW), I think there would be renewed interest in changing the way that AMHA measures also.

There have been proposals to change AMHA measuring to the TOTW (I personally wrote and fought for some of them), but up until now, it has been rejected. I believe that the biggest reason has been the controversy over what to do about the difference in ‘height’ from the LHOTM and the TOTW.

As has been stated by others, there are only two options to resolve the conflict: ‘Grandfather’ all the current horses that meet the height standard based on the LHOTM (but not if measured at the TOTW), or raise the height from 38” to some higher number, such as 39” or 40”. The problem is that neither solution will please everyone, so it creates some very ‘hot’ discussion.

The reason I see the proposal potentially affecting International organizations is that if AMHR successfully changes, then AMHA may try to follow suit, and then their decision about how to address the height difference will directly affect the International AMHA horses. There is already concern about measuring from the LHOTM with the International AMHA members as overseas they ALREADY measure their horses from the TOTW. They have to be extra careful when shopping for American horses as they cannot rely on the stated heights because of the different way of measuring. It complicates their purchasing procedures.

The International AMHA community wants AMHA to measure from the TOTW, and KEEP the 34” limit. If they do that, then the U.S. AMHA horses will match what they have, and they shouldn’t have to worry so much about importing ‘over-size’ AMHA horses. But, if AMHA were to change the 34” height standard, then although the measuring points might now match, the height standard would have changed, so the horses still aren’t the same. They would still be faced with rejecting fully papered U.S. based AMHA registered horses into their Registries. If the height limit was changed, there would then be a portion of the U.S. horses that would not be bought for importation since it’s official U.S. measurement is now over 34”. So, potentially, an International buyer would not be able to buy, import, and get papers in their country’s registry for an AMHA World Champion horse, as it might be ‘legally’ be 35” tall.

Additionally, even though an INDIVIDUAL horse won’t actually be any taller when you measure it from the TOTW, on a collective level, you do risk raising the overall height of horses being registered in an organization by raising the allowed height of the registry, even when changing the measuring point. This is because most likely they will want to raise the limit by enough to take in ALL the currently registered horses. Some will only be a half inch taller; others may be as much as two inches taller. So, where do you decide where the new limit will be? Do you raise it by the ‘average’ amount, or the upper amount? If you go with the ‘average’, you will have a significant number of horses who will lose their papers. If you raise it by the upper limit, then you have raised it higher than the average, so are in effect allowing the overall height of the registry to increase.

From my perspective, in AMHA, it seems that there is more reluctance to accept ‘raising’ the height limit above 34”. Again, from my viewpoint, it seem s that AMHA ‘only’ people are wanting to produce the smaller equines, so even the appearance of making the horses bigger is less acceptable. The 34” mark is almost sacred, so tampering with that is not taken too well.

In both AMHA & AMHR, the stated goal of the organizations is to breed the smallest, correct horse, so keeping the height limits in place, even when the measurement is changed to the TOTW, does ‘down-size’ the upper limit for animals in the registry. Some will see this as a positive change, in line with the stated goals of the organizations, so will have no problem with it. This is especially true of those that aren’t raising horses that ‘push the limits’ to begin with; it won’t be a problem with their breeding programs.

But, there are some breeders who are pushing the upper limits on nearly all of their animals (regardless of which organization they support), or have a prominent stallion in their program that is at the upper limits and tends to produce larger offspring. These breeders will be forced to make some changes unless the height limits are raised. These people will want the height raised to minimize the impact to them, rather than use the ‘Grandfathering’ method to resolve the conflict.

I guess what I am trying to say is that even though they are different organizations and neither one has consider the other at all, it doesn’t hurt to keep them in the back of your mind when making decisions.

I have some additional comments, about ‘Grandfathering’, but will start a different reply for that subject…

 

[R3]

The other consideration is ‘Grandfathering’. I believe, to the majority of members and horses, this would be a non-issue. First off, only a percentage of the currently registered horses will be affected, only those who actually measure ‘over’ the limit when measured at the TOTW. So, that should only affect horses that are taller than 32.5” to 34” when measured at the LHOTM. Most horses shorter than that will not be affected, so won’t have to be ‘grandfathered’.

And, ‘grandfathering’ will only really have an impact on the show-ring, not the breeding shed, so ‘issues’ only arise for horses that are shown, again reducing the size of the ‘problem’, and reducing the number of members who are ‘affected’ by the ‘Grandfathering’. So, in reality, the ‘problem’ shouldn’t really be that great.

Even in the show-ring, how much of an impact will it really make? I see no reason for Grandfathering to affect any horse that measures below 38” at the TOTW. I am not sure how the current proposal being discussed is written, but for a horse show, I think ALL horses should be measured at the TOTW. If a horse measures 38” or less, it goes into the appropriate height class. It wouldn’t matter what size the horse ‘used’ to be, based on a LHOTM measurement, they would all go with the ‘new’ measurement.

The ONLY exceptions would be those that measure over 38” at the TOTW. Those horses would be subject to a second measurement at the LHOTM. If the horse measured 38” or less, then they would be allowed to show in the tallest division. If they exceeded 38”, they would not be allowed to show.

Yes, this would mean that there would be some horses showing in the taller division that are taller than some others, but this has always been true to some extent. As it is now, at many shows there are classes that are only offered in 38” and under, so if you have a 30” horse, you can potentially be showing against horses 8” taller than yours. Once you get to National level shows, there are more divisions, so at the ‘worst case scenario’, the taller division, 34”-38”, you might end up with a 5 to 6 inch difference in the heights, from ‘true’ (TOTW) 34” to those whose TOTW measurement is 39” or 39.5” (depending on much taller they were than their LHOTM measurement). This is still less than what some of the smaller horses currently have to contend with when lumped in a 38” and under class.

The other thing about ‘Grandfathering’ is that eventually, horses covered by it will leave the show-ring, even before they die off, and the ‘problem’ will go away completely. It will not affect the registry forever. Changing the height limits is a permanent thing.

Another point of contention for raising the height limit would be the decision on how much to raise it, one inch? two inches? one and a half? The one inch additional height might not be enough to take in all of the currently registered horses, so what happens to them? Will those horses lose their papers? Two inches is probably too much, so you end up letting the horses be taller and still have papers. But, a half inch increment doesn’t make sense… Who is going to decide?

I haven’t seen the proposal, but it would need to be worded very specifically and spell out all the various scenarios, about exactly how high the new limit would be (if that was the option chosen) and what to do with the horses currently registered that didn’t meet the new limits. Also, what would be done with the size ‘splits’ currently in place? Would it change the current size break-off for ‘under’ and ‘over’ divisions?

Personally, I fully support changing the way Miniature horses are measured (for AMHR and AMHA), to the top or highest point of the withers, and keeping the current height limitations with a Grandfathering provision for any horse that doesn’t measure under the limit by the TOTW, but still meets it at the LHOTM. However, there would need to be enough advance notice, or a delay in the implementation to allow Breeders to adjust their programs. Other than the concern about the relatively small number of Grandfathered horses temporarily showing in the tallest division, I don’t see any real ‘down side’ to it, given that there is enough time given for people to anticipate the change.

 

[hobbyhorse23]

So Leia, how would you handle all the miniatures who will measure out of the registry if we hold to the 38" and under and do not hold an ASPC paper?

That is why I would not be in favor of such a proposal unless it also included adjusting the height limits based on averaged data such as Ruffian was proposing collecting. It wouldn't be fair, not fair at all, and I wouldn't support it.

I own only performance geldings, don't breed, and understand exactly how heartbreaking that would be for the many small-time owners out there who don't have a whole herd to "just choose another horse" from. What do you do when an arbitrary rule change means your best friend is suddenly "useless?" Kody could still show but would almost certainly measure into the over division and there is no way he'd be competitive there so it's not like this doesn't affect me too.

And if the breed associations do decide to eliminate horses from the registry, they can all come over to the ADS events and play!

Unfortunately they can't!

You know how bad the situation is for small ponies in the ADS and most 37.5-38" miniatures this would affect would also measure over the 39" VSE limit. It happened here to one large B mini and it broke his owners' hearts as he can no longer honestly be used for CDE competition although he is still (currently) well within AMHR B division limits and can show there.

I don't know what the perfect answer is. I can only imagine how much work it would be and how expensive for everyone from the registry to our local clubs to recreate our current A and B divisions as an A (maybe 33" at the withers and under?), B (33"-36" at the withers) and C (36-39" at the withers?) divisions. The idea is sort of attractive though because that way the smaller driving horses that currently can't compete well in R shows would have a place (bringing in more revenue) and the large A/small B horses wouldn't have to keep competing with the strongly ASPC-bred ponies who are in a whole different league. The on-the-edge B horses would not only retain their papers but keep right on showing in their own division including the other larger B horses who would no longer have to worry about measuring out either.

I know, I know, there's a million problems with that but it was just a thought. No matter what, I think we'd HAVE to adjust the height limits to compensate for the apparent "height change" from measuring at the withers. No matter what you do it's going to effect someone but as one poster said we have to look at what's best for the breed and fairest to the majority. Somebody somewhere will measure out, but then again another horse who measured out before may now measure in. There'd have to be provisions for that as well!

Leia

Edited to add: I read R3's very thoughtful reply after posting and there's a lot of good points in there. That "grandfathering at the top of the height limit" thing would have to be applied to the 34" split as well as the 38" limit I think, but it could work.

 

[Devon]

I own only performance geldings, don't breed, and understand exactly how heartbreaking that would be for the many small-time owners out there who don't have a whole herd to "just choose another horse" from. What do you do when an arbitrary rule change means your best friend is suddenly "useless?" Kody could still show but would almost certainly measure into the over division and there is no way he'd be competitive there so it's not like this doesn't affect me too.

My fear exactly and imagine Kody was currently 36 not 33

This is something we would have to deal with; This is a 36" horse .. What do you think he would be at the top of that huge wither/Where would you call the top of that? This will decrease our breed size drastically. This is a small horse not pushing any limit at all yet horses taller then him with a smaller wither would be allowed in.

 

[Belinda]

To Answer several of you , Yes I submitted this proposal for another person . I guess my shoulders are bigger LOL !!! As you all Know I am also a breeder of ASPC -AMHR -AMHA -ASPC/AMHR horses.. So yes it will effect me also.. But I agree with many the time has come to measure our horses as the rest of the equine world does. My Proposal reads as this. I am very open to suggestions , and change.. Just let's please stay on track and be civil !!!! This proposal was not done to hurt anyone , I want this to be the Members proposal,I want it to work for everyone, So I am very open to rework this so that it works for all concerned..

 

VI Part 7 C Page 103

With Animal in position , the head in the normal position. Measure the vertical distance from the top of the wither to the measuring surface. All horses registered prior to 2011 will still be measured at the last hair of the mane for Showing.

 

[Devon]

VI Part 7 C Page 103

With Animal in position , the head in the normal position. Measure the vertical distance from the top of the wither to the measuring surface. All horses registered prior to 2011 will still be measured at the last hair of the mane for Showing. [/size]

I still don't know how I feel about this all together BUT if all the work and money everyone has put into current breeding stock is allowed to be shown as stated in this proposal then I will buy smaller horses and start my breeding program differantly; MY biggest here is 36.5" anyways and cannot sire foals so as long as he shows I'll be happy.

 

[Belinda]

And to Devon ,

Your horse under the way this is written would still be able to show as a AMHR horse.. No one is trying to kick anyone out of the Registry . Take a deep breath , it will all work out..

 

[~Lisa~]

[

VI Part 7 C Page 103

With Animal in position , the head in the normal position. Measure the vertical distance from the top of the wither to the measuring surface. All horses registered prior to 2011 will still be measured at the last hair of the mane for Showing. [/size]

Well seeing it as written it totally works for me personally. As long as I can show my honest 38 inch aged mare which this proposalclearly covers.. then I am all for picking a day and saying from this day on it will be this way.

This saves geldings like Devons allows those that are currently showing or eligiable to show to keep showing and giving us a great starting point to move foward.

It seems pretty simple and straight forward-