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

[midnight star stables]

Well I do have mixed feelings, but all and all, I'd be for it!

As a BREED, this is just one important step closer, IMO! And I am very glad to see it! I hope this does pass, and that it works well.

I do see it hurting the Modern Miniature Pony, as most are very high withered, but since most people here don't care or like these extreme tiny horses, I don't see much of a fuss being said about it here. I do feel that that is too bad, but to each their own.

I will find it interesting, the size difference on horses. I will go out and measure four tomorrow, and see what I get for heights on withers vs. mane. I have a feeling my under mare might measure over, and my over gelding under, just because I know how different their conformation is.

And I too would like to see the height, maybe if it's only the "B" horses, raised to 39 or even 40".... But I highly doubt that that will happen.

I too, agree with Ruffian's idea!

Wooo AMHR!

 

[Minimor]

I do see it hurting the Modern Miniature Pony, as most are very high withered, but since most people here don't care or like these extreme tiny horses, I don't see much of a fuss being said about it here.

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.

 

[Mominis]

Wouldn't this be detrimental to the market for the horses that are currently under 30", but would not be under the proposed rule? The 30" horses seem to have a very strong market, good saleability, and some of the higher prices in the breeds. How would this really effect the breeders and the market as a whole?

 

[3EagleFarm]

I have very mixed feelings about it.

It's shame that the registry started out measuring at the last hair of the mane and not at the withers than all the other horses. But now to change it!? It doesn't feel right to me. And what this must be for a mess at shows to have two diffenrent measurements.

I also feel for the for the AMHR/ASPC breeders.

If they would raise the height too, this would sound much more fair to me. Or if they would only raise the "B" horses to 39 or 40", like midnight star stables quoted, tis sounds like a GREAT idea!

 

[Lisa Strass]

Pros: Our horses would be measured like all equine including the ASPC registry. This is a benefit regarding our overseas markets as well.

Cons: The biggest negative I see is the confusion of how "grandfathered" horses are measured and the size differences that will be present in the show ring for the next 20 years.

However, I am NOT in favor of raising the height limits. Not all, but most of the current 37-38" minis are double-registered ASPC. This means that they can still show in the appropriate ASPC division. Currently in ASPC there are Over and Under Divisions similar to AMHR. Maybe ASPC could divide it's Under division into 40" and Under, and 40-42"?

I'm not sure what the answer is. I like the idea of measuring at the withers, but I don't like the grandfathering or raising the height limit clauses. Unfortunately, that leaves me personally with some potentially big changes to my program!

 

[JennyB]

I have to agree with Lisa S.

 

I think you will not succeed in helping the problems we already have. We will just be adding another set of problems. Seems when we CAN'T fix the problems we DO have with measuring correctly to satisfy everyone, we go back to the drawing board after all this time.

 

Just keep on keepin on with what we already have and quit trying to FIX THINGS in mid-stream..seems the easy way out to may to me. Might hurt a lot of Miniatures and their owners in the long run.

 

Mel says, well you can just throw out all the heights and show them as the ponies they are

 

Jenny and Mel

 

[txminipinto]

No more height divisons, Lisa! LOL!

Pros: Our horses would be measured like all equine including the ASPC registry. This is a benefit regarding our overseas markets as well.

Cons: The biggest negative I see is the confusion of how "grandfathered" horses are measured and the size differences that will be present in the show ring for the next 20 years.

However, I am NOT in favor of raising the height limits. Not all, but most of the current 37-38" minis are double-registered ASPC. This means that they can still show in the appropriate ASPC division. Currently in ASPC there are Over and Under Divisions similar to AMHR. Maybe ASPC could divide it's Under division into 40" and Under, and 40-42"?

I'm not sure what the answer is. I like the idea of measuring at the withers, but I don't like the grandfathering or raising the height limit clauses. Unfortunately, that leaves me personally with some potentially big changes to my program!

 

[RhineStone]

When American Driving Society added the Very Small Equine division, they knew that the "minis" had to be measured at the withers, the same as any other horse shown at ADS events, so they made the VSE division 39" and under to accomodate the minis' 38" at the last hairs of the mane.

To me, this only makes sense to measure them like every other horse and account for the height discrepancy between the withers and last hair. Maybe this will give the rest of the horse world one less thing to poo-poo minis about.

 

[Lisa Strass]

No more height divisons, Lisa! LOL!

Yeah, I know. I had to kick myself for even thinking about the addition of more classes.

LOL!

 

[hobbyhorse23]

I would suggest a survey of horses at Nationals to get an average of how much difference there is between the withers and last hair. ... That way we would have a strong mathematical basis for deciding to not change the current sizes, or by how much to change them. To simply "guestimate" what to change them to is not scientific, and horses are going to have different wither definiation.

Ditto Ruffian! I think doing the study at Nationals is a great idea. Can't get more miniature horses in one place than that....

Leia

 

[Magic]

When American Driving Society added the Very Small Equine division, they knew that the "minis" had to be measured at the withers, the same as any other horse shown at ADS events, so they made the VSE division 39" and under to accomodate the minis' 38" at the last hairs of the mane.

This would make the most sense, IMO. Raising the height limit if the measuring change were implemented would lessen the problems of "grandfathered-in" horses and younger horses showing and being measured differently, and of the possible peril of breeding programs being damaged or even destroyed by at-the-limit heights suddenly being over.

I would support the measuring change *if* the height limit were adjusted.

 

[alphahorses]

There are a few problems, I believe.

One problem: The minis measured at the withers starting in 2011 could be at a competitive disadvantage in a driving class against a mini that measures 38 inches at the last hair of the mane but would be 40-plus inches at the withers. That competitive disadvantage also could come into play in Halter and other classes.

Another problem: Breeding programs could be destroyed. Several well-known breeders produce high-quality ASPC-AMHR double registered ponies/minis that breed to be in that 37-38 inch range. They built their programs based on the current rules. What happens to them?

Perhaps raising the height limits for Under and Over horses should be a strong option.

I agree with everything Yaddax3 said here.

I would like to see them measured at the withers, but I think it will make it unnecessarily complicated for stewards and show managers if you have some horses measured at the withers and others "grandfathered" in to measure at the last hair. Why would it be so bad to have miniature horses that are 39" or even 40" at the withers? Why are we so attached to limiting them to 38"?

By the way, I had a pony measure as much as 1.5" different from one steward to the other last year. So yes, there can be a big difference in measurements. I watched the steward who measured her 1.5" higher than the rest had, and the stick was no where near level.

Maybe this will give the rest of the horse world one less thing to poo-poo minis about.

Yes, big horse people often think minis are a joke - and measuring them like dogs (speaking figuratively here) instead of horses doesn't help our case.

 

[Sandee]

.........

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

By the way, I had a pony measure as much as 1.5" different from one steward to the other last year. So yes, there can be a big difference in measurements. I watched the steward who measured her 1.5" higher than the rest had, and the stick was no where near level.

Yes, big horse people often think minis are a joke - and measuring them like dogs (speaking figuratively here) instead of horses doesn't help our case.

Ditto. I had a horse gain over an 1" in a month between an AMHA show and an AMHR show.

 

[alphahorses]

Hum... could have interesting implications for all those people out there with height guarantees on horses they sold.

I would suggest a survey of horses at Nationals to get an average of how much difference there is between the withers and last hair.

Great idea.

 

[~Lisa~]

I'm not sure what the answer is. I like the idea of measuring at the withers, but I don't like the grandfathering or raising the height limit clauses. Unfortunately, that leaves me personally with some potentially big changes to my program!

I feel the exact same way

 

[hobbyhorse23]

Ditto. I had a horse gain over an 1" in a month between an AMHA show and an AMHR show.

I can beat that.

My very first AMHA show ever my stud colt was whirling and fussing during measurement and they didn't even bother resetting the stick from the last horse. The bored steward in question simply touched the stick to his back and pronounced him 31" without it ever hitting the floor or the horse ever once standing still. I found this especially interesting considering he is taller in the rump than my mature 33.5" gelding!

Thankfully for my peace of mind regarding AMHA the next A show I entered he and my other gelding both measured 33" which I feel is right on the money. Two weeks later at an R show they were 33" for the colt and 33.5" for the gelding which again is fairly accurate as the gelding is higher in the withers than the colt.

Still, funny how he "grew" two inches in two months.

And that's not even using the withers!

Leia

 

[kaykay]

By the way, I had a pony measure as much as 1.5" different from one steward to the other last year. So yes, there can be a big difference in measurements. I watched the steward who measured her 1.5" higher than the rest had, and the stick was no where near level.

I agree. Last year I showed at a show about 10 days from Congress. At Congress the pony measured almost 2" taller then it measured at the last show. The steward didnt believe me so I showed her the card from the previous show. Didnt matter as the pony was still in its height class but just shows how inaccurate it all is weather you measure at the withers or at the last mane hair.

I also agree that using 2 different ways to measure will cause a lot of grief and headaches. I dont know what the big deal is with raising the heights? Its just a number we all set.

Although I would love to see us measure at the withers like every other breed, I think more thought needs to go into how to actually implement this that is fair and doesnt punish members. To much is at stake with people breeding to these requirements for so many years so it really needs to be looked at from all avenues before it gets passed. Would hate to see it passed and then retracted because the whole picture wasnt looked at.

 

[StarRidgeAcres]

I think the idea to move toward measuring like the rest of the equine world is a good one. I'm not smart enough to know the best way to implement such a change in direction, but I get why it would be a good thing. Just wish we could wave a magic wand and be there with no issues.

On a personal note, although I like the general idea, I need to think through it more but I believe it means big changes for someone like me that offers height guarantees and breeds for the under 30" horse. And I wonder what it means for horses like Raven who have titles in that 28" and Under class? Now she'd be a 28.5" horse if I took her back in the ring under the new rules I'm guessing. And it seems to me that the smallest I can get and still be of quality conformation is 28" (using current measurement) so in the future I'd not have any in that under 28" range that were of the quality that I think is acceptable for showing/breeding. Maybe Mira and Pete, but the rest would now be 28-30". It's VERY, VERY hard to get one under 28" now that is well conformed. It will be darn near impossible in the future! I guess the bright side of that is their value just went up!

It's a better mind than mine that will come up with a workable solution, but I do applaud the effort and back the reasoning.

 

[Getitia]

A few thoughts and things to consider with the proposed change to measure AMHR miniatures at the withers.

I'm going to "assume" that approximately 1/2 of the AMHR members who own AMHR miniatures also own a few AMHA miniatures (many are double registered). Lets fast forward 5 years (non grandfathered horses as proposed) - and now my AMHA miniature measures 34 at the last hair of the mane - and the same miniature measures 35 at the withers for its AMHR registration - or even 34 1/2 - regardless of 1/4 inch or 1 inch difference - my AMHA miniature now is going to be an Over or B division AMHR miniature. How is that advertised? How does one explained to the general public the difference in measuring methods and how the same AMHA horse will now show in an AMHR "over" division? Do you think that AMHA will care that the AMHA horse has an AMHR "oversize" national title? If my memory serves me correctly, I believe we have a few forum members that experienced challenges with this type of issue in the past - AMHA wins and AMHR over division wins at the National level with the same horse.

Also, given the perception of many purchasers in today's market, would the horse in this example now be as valuable? - it has AMHA papers and can show as an under horse in one registry - but is AMHR "oversize" and shows accordingly in AMHR......may be seen as unfair or confusing perhaps.

Several years ago when measuring at the withers was proposed and discussed on the forum - I measured about 50 of our horses - standing square and unstretched - all of our horses measured from 1/4 inch up to 2 inches additional in height (average was about 1 inch higher) - Our biggest movers actually have the highest withers - those with mutton withers had the most minimal difference. Not one of our horses measured the same or smaller. (for those who doubt the above - bring your measuring stick and come one down to the farm)

Using just our own farms statistics above at the most extreme variation of 2 inches - lets again fast forward 5 years and move to the showring. We will have about 15 to 20+ years of the grandfathered horses measuring at the last hair showing against the nongrandfathered horses being measured at the withers. So I'm going to assume that exhibitors will not be concerned when they show a 34 inch measured at the wither nongrandfathered horse that measures 32 at the last hair against a 34 inch grandfathered horse that is measured at the last hair that is actually 36 inches measured at the withers...............

Others have mentioned different wither measurements from show to show - I have a number of shetland measurement cards with wither measurements ( I keep them all) that show about the same measurement variations as the last hair measurements-anywhere from 1/2 inch to 1 inch) on mature ponies that showed all year and then measured higher or lower at Congress.

Just a few things to perhaps consider......

 

[Songcatcher]

A few thoughts and things to consider with the proposed change to measure AMHR miniatures at the withers.

I'm going to "assume" that approximately 1/2 of the AMHR members who own AMHR miniatures also own a few AMHA miniatures (many are double registered). Lets fast forward 5 years (non grandfathered horses as proposed) - and now my AMHA miniature measures 34 at the last hair of the mane - and the same miniature measures 35 at the withers for its AMHR registration - or even 34 1/2 - regardless of 1/4 inch or 1 inch difference - my AMHA miniature now is going to be an Over or B division AMHR miniature. How is that advertised? How does one explained to the general public the difference in measuring methods and how the same AMHA horse will now show in an AMHR "over" division? Do you think that AMHA will care that the AMHA horse has an AMHR "oversize" national title? .....

Just a few things to perhaps consider......

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.