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

[Songcatcher]

Actually, I was agreeing with most of what you said - except for the comment about people trying to "squeeze" in horses. You have to understand - there is a lot of controversy over horses who are over 38" showing at AMHR shows. We only show in AMHR if the horse is easily measured in, so that type of comment stirs up controversy.

I'm sorry if you felt jumped on.

Thank you.

 

[RhineStone]

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.

That's just stupid. Why would you not measure all horses the same way at the same show? Then they are all showing in their own height class regardless of when they were born.

Again, I think that grandfathering should mean that if your horse suddenly goes over height with the new measuring system, you can still keep your papers for it, and it's offspring could be registered. What should that have to do with showing?

So if that is what the proposal states, shoot it down and start over. (BTW, is there a place to read the actual proposal or are we all just making assumptions and wasting our breath/typing fingers?)

 

[Belinda]

I would like to say that there are lots of good points being discussed and that is what this Forum is for , Thanks Mary Lou. But I would like to add that it looks like it is about to blow the Turn as there is starting to be some

So PLEASE lets continue to discuss this in a friendly way so that it does not get closed down.. This is very important to many Poeple and those that are concerned you need to come to Convention as that is where this will be voted on , and yes we can make changes to the proposal as long as the person that sent the proposal in is there and Ok's the changes... And that person will be there and they are open to suggestions !!!!

 

[~Lisa~]

Fran... I assure you I am NOT fighting...I am sorry if it seemed that way. Sometimes the written word does not always convey the intent

Thanks for bringing up Convention and yes you are correct.. there was talk of an attorney as our by -laws were not clearly understood and contradict eacother on many occassions however.. we have a very intelligent man heading up the by laws committee and going over them to ensure they are both understood, not contradicted by eachother There was a need for change and the BOD has handled it.

I will say once again I have not agreed with every decision the BOD has made- it is not the Lisa registry. Life does not always go according to Lisa.. I might not always like it but it is a fact us grown ups have to accept

I also have to admit sometimes I do go with what Songcatcher and John both said.. what works for me - what fits my agenda and that might not always be best for the registry as a whole in the long run. More times then not once some time has passed and I am able to think outside of myself I can see the reasoning behind decisions I did not originally agree with and see they have valid points.

And sometimes .. as much as I hate to admit it lol I have just been plain wrong

But now lets get back to the issue at hand which is a proposal-Many are bringing up some valid points on both sides... very good discussion

 

[Devon]

The only issue I have with this is that I personally know there is a almost 2 inch differance on my ponies from back to wither .......

I did read above that the horses form older generations would be measured the old way BUT still should I not breed my 37" horses then because I know when shown shetland they measure alot bigger..

 

[Devon]

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

Have you tried measuring them at the wither it is such a large differance almost every hrose thats aspc/amhr have measures etleast an inch differance at congress then nationals.. Its so frustrating I have a horse who is so safely AMHR he measured 36.5 this year he is not pushing it at all and I bet if you took it up to his wither I'd have to worry ..

 

[JWC sr.]

Devon,

I am sure there is at least a 1-3" difference in the measurement from the last mane hair to the top of the withers. I was just in the barn and measured a couple of ours that are on the show circuit and they ran anywhere for 1 1/4" to 2 1/8" higher. In our case it would not make a difference as they would still measure in, but one would go into the B classes and the other would remain in the A classes.

Belinda,

Has anyone made any suggestions on how to handle the height requirements?

Would the height requirements for the classes remain the same as the are now 38" and under and 34" & under as it is currently written?

Jacki, like you we have been in big horses for over thirty years (mainly AQHA, ACHA and ARHA). We have been ask by many folks over the years about the discrepancy. While I agree with you we DON'T have to follow the other breeds, the continuity would be a good thing for us I think.

I agree with the others to, lets keep this thing civil so we can have a voicing of opinions, I think it is important.

 

[Devon]

Devon,

I am sure there is at least a 1-3" difference in the measurement from the last mane hair to the top of the withers. I was just in the barn and measured a couple of ours that are on the show circuit and they ran anywhere for 1 1/4" to 2 1/8" higher. In our case it would not make a difference as they would still measure in, but one would go into the B classes and the other would remain in the A classes.

Belinda,

Has anyone made any suggestions on how to handle the height requirements?

Would the height requirements for the classes remain the same as the are now 38" and under and 34" & under as it is currently written?

Jacki, like you we have been in big horses for over thirty years (mainly AQHA, ACHA and ARHA). We have been ask by many folks over the years about the discrepancy. While I agree with you we DON'T have to follow the other breeds, the continuity would be a good thing for us I think.

I agree with the others to, lets keep this thing civil so we can have a voicing of opinions, I think it is important.

Yea I mean most of mine would be fine and I wouldn't worry at all but what about your taller ASPC horses? That are fine for height now but may be now considered pushing it? Thats where im at though Im sure my 36.5" guy would be ok but he'd be pushing it and I'm really not comfortable with that.. Also should I breed him? And now I need to have 35-36" horses and worry.. I just don't think it's a great idea its like we have to have all minis under 36.5 now any that we own that are taller probably won't make the cut..

On the same note some horses have like next to no wither and some have a 3 inch wither yet standing side by side you'll find the one that measured 3" taller is exactly the same height.. I get that in large horses it is how it's done BUT height is not nearly as big a deal... You don't get your papers thrown away and no chance to show while other horses out in the ring are the exact same size as your horse but with no wither.. I just don't feel the height of my horse should be based on the bone on his back which is such a lottery height wise...more like the actual height he stands from his back..

 

[targetsmom]

OK, I admit I have not read every single reply on this thread so i don't know if this issue was raised..

When this discussion came up for AMHA, I proposed that the height be measured to the top of the withers AND THEN SUBTRACT THE HEIGHT OF THE HOOF. This could be heel height or whatever, but the effect would be 1) people wouldn't trim hooves down to nothing to measure a certain height and 2) the height would more closely approximate the current "last mane hair" height, which would address a lot of the issues raised here. Of course, it would take a bit more time to measure each horse.

 

[Lisa Strass]

Ok, I've slept on this which I always find helpful.

For those that don't know me, Mike and I raise ASPC and ASPC/AMHR horses that we show and promote (and win on the National level in halter and driving) in both ASPC and AMHR. We usually have about 8 foals a year, so I would consider us a small breeder. The goal of our breeding program has been to produce National Champion 34-38" horses. My reason for stating all this is to let all of you know that we are definitely one of the breeders who would be impacted greatly, and we have put a lot of hard work and money into our program.

My thoughts haven't changed much from my 1st post, but let me expand on them a bit...

- Measure at the withers - I still think this is a good idea as it is how all horses (except AMHA and AMHR are measured). This means a horse in ASPC/AMHR would have one measurement. Consistency is good! Within our own organization, we wouldn't have to say well as a mini, it measures this and as a Shetland it measures this. I'm really not concerned about what the horses measures in AMHA. That is a different organization and may even change itself if it is the ONLY horse registry in the world that measures differently.

- Grandfathering for show purposes - I really think this just opens a can of worms and will cause a lot of unhappy feelings for years to come especially at the National show. However, I do think it is OK to keep horses grandfathered for breeding purposes similar to what AMHA did many years ago. I don't think a horse should lose its papers over this, but unfortunately, there will by many geldings that lose some value as they can no longer show in the R division and obviously can't be bred. Note that I say some value. Many of these horses will still have their ASPC papers and can still be shown as such. Let's not forget that I think THE most successful sale this year was ASPC horses and the high selling horses were ASPC registered only!!!

- Do not raise the height limit - I guess I am one that believes in going forward. You don't get better if you aren't challenged. The miniature horse is supposed to be a Miniature horse. Raising the height limit doesn't get us closer to that goal.

To sum this up, we need to show our horses where they belong. If they are truly 38" and under at the withers, we show them in AMHR. If not, we show them in ASPC. Most of our shows already offer both divisions. To me, this really seems like a win/win for both sides of our organization. Normally, I am against the addition of more classes, but in this case I think the organization as a whole should offer these horses that are directly impacted a 38-40" subdivision of the Unders at Congress.

Mares are already bred for 2011 foals, so I would suggest this change takes place effective with the 2012 show season.

Will this cause me to make changes to my program? Absolutely! Does it change the way I personally rank my horses? Yes. But I do believe it is a progressive step for ASPC / AMHR as a whole.

 

[muffntuf]

Having a couple double registered, this doesn't effect my farm hugely- BUT to clarify for everyone- the rule proposal changes had a deadline of July 1 to be to the appropriate chairs of their respective committees.

I am not sure the AMHR Chair reads this forum. Possibly they have not digested the proposal yet either??? It would be nice if the proposal was posted so that all could read and make an informed decision before Committee's meet and Convention is held, to hear from the AMHR and yes the ASPC membership, (as they have a stake in the double registered equine). It's been asked for 3 times now, hopefully someone will post it before either on the registry website or the forums. As we all know our official publication may or may not get the proposals out in time. And there is no dig there for or to anyone - its just a matter of if it will get out in time for convention.

And of course, may I remind everyone, its good to discuss these topics and throw ideas out to see if they stick, but the committee gets it first and then its presented to the BOD at convention. With that said, get to know your committee and its chair and your area BOD members, let them know your thoughts as well a posting here.

 

[txminipinto]

But Lisa S, if we don't change the heights (which is a number we came up with to begin with), what about all those AMHR ONLY horses that measure 38" at the last mane hair? Those horses would be completely out of the program because they aren't shetlands.

This proposal won't affect my breeding program as I focus on ASPC only BUT it will affect my AMHR clients.

 

[Jacki Loomis]

John, You mention being asked about the "discrepancy", discrepancy with what/who? As I understand it both AMHR & AMHA measure the same way, last hair of the main, correct?

Several of us have asked if the proposal is available, can anyone answer that question or tell us who the author/presenter of the proposal is?

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]

 

[Songcatcher]

Although Lisa Strass and I have totally different breeding programs, I can't find anything in her post that I disagree with.

ASPC/AMHR horses that go oversize (and some do already) are still registered and eligible to show in ASPC. Regarding R only horses that will be oversized, some horses do go oversize in both A and R. I'm told ASPC/AMHR has a Show Pony registry to solve that problem.

 

[Lisa Strass]

But Lisa S, if we don't change the heights (which is a number we came up with to begin with), what about all those AMHR ONLY horses that measure 38" at the last mane hair? Those horses would be completely out of the program because they aren't shetlands.

This proposal won't affect my breeding program as I focus on ASPC only BUT it will affect my AMHR clients.

I realize this, and this situation is particularly unfortunate. I guess I would say it isn't unprecedented as AMHA did this with the Oversise breeding stock. And sometimes change, even for the better, is painful.

Yes, the height was arbitrarily chosen back in the day. But that doesn't mean arbitrarily raising it is the right answer either. I mean why just 1"? To truly account for ALL THE HORSES being shown, the height would need to be raised about 2". So now you are at 40"!! I really don't think that was/or is the goal of the Miniature horse as a breed. No matter what method is chosen, someone's horses will be directly affected, so we need to think about what makes sense and what is best for the organization as a whole.

 

[~Lisa~]

Devon.. Yes it could mean if there is no difference in measuring for those horses already registered.. that I would have a 38.00 in horse who would not be able to show - the horse is not ASPC registered...

I do also have others whose height would not change much and even with the change would be ok and stay in size.

It would suck for me to be honest to not be able to show my 38.00 horse anywhere and suddenly have a grade horse. It would suck big time in fact..I am not sure what the answer is for the many horses out there like mine- or how to address those types of things. It is not my proposal

On the other hand I do think we should measure at the withers - I am not sure how to make that peacefully coexisit with the fact there are a lot of truly honest 37-38 inch single registered horses that would over night become grade horses

 

[Sue_C.]

I am all for this proposal, AS I UNDERSTAND IT...but not having read it myself...really, how does one know "what is what"?

if we don't change the heights (which is a number we came up with to begin with), what about all those AMHR ONLY horses that measure 38" at the last mane hair? Those horses would be completely out of the program because they aren't shetlands.

Exactly. There HAS to be some form of rule allowing horses registered now...to remain so. You CANNOT just tell someone..."We have changed the rules, now send your now unregistered (due to rule changes)horse's papers back. CAN YOU SAYYYYYY...L-A-W-S-U-I-T???????

Let those with "safely under" horses, not be so complacent as to think that the ones with horses LEGALLY, "on the edge of over-size" will just allow their horses and breeding programs be taken from them with a change in the rulebook. they have as much right to be considered here as those who breed the smaller horses. Besides, "your" 28" horse will NOW very likely become 30" or taller...it will affect "you" too.

I think it is time for us to "get over ourselves", get this registry/association to come together as a BREED registry, and all horses stay registered - period.

 

[kaykay]

And that person will be there and they are open to suggestions !!!!

Belinda did you submit the proposal? Or maybe its just someone you know? Just would be nice to read how its written. I know last year they did put out the proposals a long with who wrote them. Will they be doing that this year before convention?

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Although Lisa Strass and I have totally different breeding programs, I can't find anything in her post that I disagree with.

ASPC/AMHR horses that go oversize (and some do already) are still registered and eligible to show in ASPC. Regarding R only horses that will be oversized, some horses do go oversize in both A and R. I'm told ASPC/AMHR has a Show Pony registry to solve that problem.

I have to disagree about the show pony division. I have a 10 year old AMHR only gelding (both parents deceased with no dna on file) so I am unable to register him as a National Show Pony Registry. So unless you can get DNA, you won't be able to show in that division and that is only at Congress. Luckily I have a shetland that was able to be registered as a NSPR.

But that would leave my AMHA hardshipped into AMHR gelding in the pasture. Depending upon who measures him he will either be in or out. Considering there was a 3 inch difference measurement in a two week period. And feet don't grow that fast. He goes 37-37.5 last mane hair but AMHR came out to resolve a dispute on height (finding him not over 38 inches), but I did ask them to give me a measurement off the top of his withers and did give me a measurement of 39 inches. And he is extremely high withered and not a shetland, though he looks more like a shetland than my ASPC shetlands.

Now if we can change the requirements to drop the DNA verification which was suppose to vertify cross registered ponies or minis with any other breed. But maybe a proposal for currently registered minis to automatically be eligible with either AMHR or ASPC papers be able to be registered without the DNA verification, then it would work. Of course that would bring us to a "C" division as Mini Nationals. Also NSPR is a performance division, not a halter/breeding division.

 

[muffntuf]

Although Lisa Strass and I have totally different breeding programs, I can't find anything in her post that I disagree with.

ASPC/AMHR horses that go oversize (and some do already) are still registered and eligible to show in ASPC. Regarding R only horses that will be oversized, some horses do go oversize in both A and R. I'm told ASPC/AMHR has a Show Pony registry to solve that problem.

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.