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

[Mellis815]

Not to throw fuel onto a fire

, but GUYS COME ON! This isn't even a "rule" yet and there are slaps going back and forth.

Perhaps we should just relax...wait to see what comes of it, and then we can all unleash our feelings.

Rumors are just that...rumors

 

[Minimor]

Honest to goodness, I get so tired of some people throwing up “the smallest horse is the best” and making snide comments that are directed toward those that own/breed/prefer the taller ones. We hear frequent complaints about how the smaller horse is supposed to win over the taller horse, according to the rules, yet frequently judges pin the taller horses over the smaller ones. I think perhaps some people overlook the complete wording in that particular rule, something to the effect of “all else being equal”. Sometimes—often even—all else isn’t equal, and that is why the taller horse wins over the smaller one. There’s more to it than just size…or at least there should be!

People talk about the smallest, most perfect horse, but they don’t see that the smallest most perfect horse might be 35” tall rather than 27” tall. For me small doesn’t automatically equal perfect and in fact I can’t think of many tiny ones that are closer to perfect than many taller ones are. I like to visualize them grown up to 15.2 hh size, and imagne how they would look if they were full size horses. Would they look like nice horses, or wouldn't they? Proportion problems would be much more obvious if the horse were 15.2! I am NOT knocking all smaller horses and/or their breeders, but there are still quite a number of people who are breeding for small and nothing else (just recently someone was raving to me about a wonderful, gorgeous stallion that she had booked her mares to--she hadn't seen the horse nor even any photos of him, he was gorgeous and perfect only because of his very small height. She didn't even know what his pedigree was. She isn't the only one out there that is like that.) I haven't encountered anyone that breeds simply for TALL. In most cases I hear something to the effect of "such and such stallion is really nice, but he's BIG" and they don't want to breed to BIG.

Songcatcher...I don't think most people are trying to breed the tallest horses that they can fit into the registry, I think they are trying to breed nice, well proportioned horses and those horses just happen to be tall.

I think that the Miniature breed would be in better shape today if people back when had not tried to downsize above all else--if they had bred for things other than small size and taken more time to downsize there would be fewer problems to deal with now.

 

[muffntuf]

"or if you are trying to breed the TALLEST horse you can possibly register. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST TALLER HORSES. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT, BY ALL MEANS BREED THEM. JUST QUIT PRETENDING THEY ARE MINIATURES!"

If they are 38" and under they are still miniature horses. I do not see where someone is trying to go over the 38" height limit.

I do however see a confirmation transformation on the AMHR/ASPC, by introducing a longer leaner leg and smaller barrel - but they are still making that height requirement.

 

[AshleyNicole]

Songcatcher...I don't think most people are trying to breed the tallest horses that they can fit into the registry, I think they are trying to breed nice, well proportioned horses and those horses just happen to be tall.

thank you exactly my thoughts and btw under the current rule all of my horses do measure in.... I think if the rule changed then I may have a problem with one or two ( one being my main herd sire). I think that is the issue here for most that disagree with this change. It's not that we are trying to squeeze a oversize horse in we just want to make sure our current horses and their future offspring are able to compete in the show ring as well. I think that we could reach a compromise and I would have no problem with it.

 

[Sandee]

Not to throw fuel onto a fire

, but GUYS COME ON! This isn't even a "rule" yet and there are slaps going back and forth.

Perhaps we should just relax...wait to see what comes of it, and then we can all unleash our feelings.

Rumors are just that...rumors

Not that I'm saying we should have a knock down drag out fight over this now but people should get worked up over it enough to get noticed. It's a lot better now than to wait until it's over and then cry or rage which would do no one any good.

As to the "perfect little horse" - UGH! Sorry, I don't belong to AMHA (that seems to be their banner saying). I also don't breed! I'm in this because I like to show. And with the way horses are selling and eveyone cutting back on breeding --we need to find some more like me that JUST WANT TO SHOW!! I'm too old and arthritic to do the big horses. Also the littler ones have a nicer temperment. I like to drive and do obstacle and even some hunter. I want a horse that "tries" his/her mightiest -and I have one; not that she always wins but she pleases me each and every time.

I also have one that's double registered ASPC/AMHR. He really can't compete against those big Shetlands and his only talent is driving. Come to think of it none of my horses get high ribbons in halter. But this guy would be out of a job if he could not have been registered in AMHR. As a gelding he would fit no-where as he has the Shetland high withers. I love the way he moves and it would be a shame if he and others like him had no place to show.

Until and unless the Association changes more rules this is a height registry and changing the way they measure won't make it anything else!! I still would vote NO.

 

[Debby - LB]

So I have heard there is a propsal in set to be discussed in Nov.. (AMHR) for measuring at the withers instead of the last mane hairs.

My understanding is that it would start in 2011- leaving all previous measurements as they stand with the last mane hairs and moving forward having them done at the withers.

Any thoughts? I know this passed and was reversed in AMHA but I have always thought horses should be measured like any other equine at the withers. Yes some horses would then be to large and I am not sure what that would mean for them or if they would simply measure out?

But why we measure them somewhere no other breed does just so they appear smaller has never made much sense to me or seemed the right thing to do.

Thoughts-opinions?

I think it's wonderful and wish it would pass in both registries. I always measure mine top of the wither anyway.

 

[Lisa Strass]

R3,

You have brought up a very good point that I don't think most people understand. I've highlighted it below because I think you explained very well.

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.

 

[Lisa Strass]

Belinda,

I fully support measuring in the way you are proposing. I personally think that your proposal could be 'tweaked' in two ways.

1. I would suggest measuring ALL horses as proposed at a show. But, if a horse doesn't measure under 38", and it was born before a certain date, then it would be re-measured, using the 'last hair of the mane' location. If it measured under 38" by that measurement, it would be allowed to show. If not, it could not show.

This to me is a better way, for two reasons. First, you will only have a height 'discrepency' (horses that are now 'taller' than the height division in which they entered) between animals in the tallest division., all other height divisions will be competing from the same playing field. Secondly, the Steward will not be constantly having to check the birth/registration date to decide 'how' to measure the horse. They would all be measured the same, they would only have to go to the 'last hair of the mane' for the horses that were over 38".

2. I would change the date from 2011 to some date further in the future, at the very earliest 2012. This would give breeders a chance to change their program to prepare for the change in measuring location. They may want to breed their mares to a different stallion. Too many mares have already been bred to foal in 2011 for the owners to make a change now.

I could support the proposal with these two improvements.

 

[stormy]

This constant arguement miniature horses came from Shetlands making them the "golden" ones so somehow they automatically have the RIGHT to be registered as Miniatures, to the exclusion of all other pony breeds, if they meet height standards is just plan crap in my opinion. Shetlands and Miniatures took differant paths a long time ago. Shetlands added Hackney and other high and hot breeds such as welsh ponies and grades also(behind the barn and not acknowledge but well known within the breed) where minis added POA, arab and other family friendly "horse for everyone" breeds. They became differant. Personally I think if you are accepting one breed of pony, all should be allowed...just my opinion...and actually I always wanted to breed down pasos to mini size, too late now! Would have been fun though!

That is not the point of this thread though. The point is why don't we measure like everyone else? There are many many ASPC/AMHR horses that would measure under 38" at the withers. How does 1" height reduction "exclude" the ASPC horses??? Shetlands were bred down to 38" and under why the heck would it be so hard to come down one more little inch?!? And having said that I have some AMHR only horses that would not measure in at the top of the withers, not just Shetlands will be impacted.

My one concern with changing the measuring system to the top of the withers is will this cause the breed as a whole to select against high withered horses? As a breeder selecting for performance and movement this would impact the beautiful free motion and long stride we have developed in the Miniature horse, would not want to see that lost to make the height division (any height division, not just the 38" maximum).

I also don't believe that somehow magically large horse breeders are going to accept the miniature any more then they do now because we decide to measure at the withers. Having measured 4H ponies for years believe me people did all kinds of things to get their horses measured in as ponies and measuring at the withers will not change that.

So I will wait and see, a lot bigger concerns in the world today...sure am not going to lose sleep over this!!

I do want to add though that I agree if this is implemented it should not be implemented overnight but over a number of years, horses born before a certain date would still be measured at the last hair and no horse born before that date would lose there papers or breeding privelages...would be tricky in the show ring for a while during the change over.

 

[txminipinto]

I don't think anyone is concerned about the ASPC/AMHR horses. They will always have some place to go. The concern is the honest 38" at the last hair AMHR only horse that will now measure out if they measure at the withers. It is those horses and those owners I am concerned about. I am at a loss why anyone would just shrug their shoulders and say "too bad" to those owners if this rule passes as it is written. It is blatantly unfair and is exactly the type of action that tickes people off and makes them leave our association.

If we are going to measure at the withers then we need to adjust our heights so that current horses are not suddenly excluded and left paperless. In this economy, the association needs to be doing all that it can to retain and bring in new members.

 

[AshleyNicole]

Exactly, we had a R only filly who, had she had been born in 2011 if this rule where in effect would just be a unregistered horse. I can't see how that is fair at all.

 

[Devon]

I don't think anyone is concerned about the ASPC/AMHR horses. They will always have some place to go. The concern is the honest 38" at the last hair AMHR only horse that will now measure out if they measure at the withers. It is those horses and those owners I am concerned about. I am at a loss why anyone would just shrug their shoulders and say "too bad" to those owners if this rule passes as it is written. It is blatantly unfair and is exactly the type of action that tickes people off and makes them leave our association.

If we are going to measure at the withers then we need to adjust our heights so that current horses are not suddenly excluded and left paperless. In this economy, the association needs to be doing all that it can to retain and bring in new members.

Yea I really don't know either

 

[Songcatcher]

Well, I have read every post in this thread at least once, and some of them twice. It is clear that you will never make everyone happy. One person's definition of moving forward is another person's definition of moving back.

I am not going to go back and count how many times someone has basically said that their ASPC/AMHR (under 38 LHOTM but possibly 40 or more at TOTW) simply cannot compete with taller Shetlands or that their 38 LHOTM but over 38 TOTW cannot compete with the Show Ponies. Obviously, there are a lot of people that feel their horses are inferior and the only place they can compete is in AMHR.

Lots of people have said that a change would be unfair. Life is . . . .

Several have mentioned that they would be OK with changing the location of the measurement IF height requirements were adjusted in order to be FAIR. OK, so lets try to be fair to EVERYONE. SOME very high withered horses MAY measure as much as 3 inches taller TOTW than they would LHOTM. And of course it is a fact that when you breed two horses of equal height, you sometimes get a foal that is taller than EITHER parent. So, to make it FAIR, lets add another inch and say 42 inches TOTW. Now of course this a height registry, and it is not FAIR to exclude other horses/ponies that would measure in. At that height, we could even squeeze in a few Welsh, and that would vastly improve the gene pool.

It would also be attractive to more members and increase revenue for the registry. Hey, what about some of those smaller Thoroughbreds that can't compete on the track? Many of them are after all SMALLER than most Thoroughbreds and its not FAIR to them that they can't compete. Maybe we could take them in also so they could be competitive. I'm sure they would think that was very FAIR of us. Of course, we would have to raise the height limit a little more to accomodate them, but its just an arbitrary line anyway. Miniature simply means smaller than normal.

I think we've got to decide if we want to be FAIR to everyone, or if we want to improve the breed. SOME people here have clearly stated that they believe BIGGER IS BETTER. I DISAGREE! Have any of you read the book, Justin Morgan Had A Horse? The original Morgan horse was considered a runt and a cull by almost everyone except Justin Morgan. He eventually prooved he could out work, out pull, out ride, and out produce much larger horses. I am not going to sit back and accept that bigger is better.

 

[Devon]

Well, I have read every post in this thread at least once, and some of them twice. It is clear that you will never make everyone happy. One person's definition of moving forward is another person's definition of moving back.

I am not going to go back and count how many times someone has basically said that their ASPC/AMHR (under 38 LHOTM but possibly 40 or more at TOTW) simply cannot compete with taller Shetlands or that their 38 LHOTM but over 38 TOTW cannot compete with the Show Ponies. Obviously, there are a lot of people that feel their horses are inferior and the only place they can compete is in AMHR.

Lots of people have said that a change would be unfair. Life is . . . .

Several have mentioned that they would be OK with changing the location of the measurement IF height requirements were adjusted in order to be FAIR. OK, so lets try to be fair to EVERYONE. SOME very high withered horses MAY measure as much as 3 inches taller TOTW than they would LHOTM. And of course it is a fact that when you breed two horses of equal height, you sometimes get a foal that is taller than EITHER parent. So, to make it FAIR, lets add another inch and say 42 inches TOTW. Now of course this a height registry, and it is not FAIR to exclude other horses/ponies that would measure in. At that height, we could even squeeze in a few Welsh, and that would vastly improve the gene pool.

It would also be attractive to more members and increase revenue for the registry. Hey, what about some of those smaller Thoroughbreds that can't compete on the track? Many of them are after all SMALLER than most Thoroughbreds and its not FAIR to them that they can't compete. Maybe we could take them in also so they could be competitive. I'm sure they would think that was very FAIR of us. Of course, we would have to raise the height limit a little more to accomodate them, but its just an arbitrary line anyway. Miniature simply means smaller than normal.

I think we've got to decide if we want to be FAIR to everyone, or if we want to improve the breed. SOME people here have clearly stated that they believe BIGGER IS BETTER. I DISAGREE! Have any of you read the book, Justin Morgan Had A Horse? The original Morgan horse was considered a runt and a cull by almost everyone except Justin Morgan. He eventually prooved he could out work, out pull, out ride, and out produce much larger horses. I am not going to sit back and accept that bigger is better.

On that note form your previous posts I gather you breed A size horses that will never measure out. I do not believe bigger is better but I did so happens to by B size horses last year and now I am to be penalized for it. I may be less passionate about the issue if I didn't love the B breeding stock I currently own and saved alot of money to buy/promote and show. I do not own one too big AMHR horse and don't push the limits there are no ASPC shows here and 2 of my Bs are AMHR only I didn't think to ask their wither measurement when I bought them. Now what do I breed them to A's I don't know that I would since one is going to finish 37".

 

[JaniceZ]

Thinking out loud...Why not go for a Miniature Horse breed label, instead of a height label? Any horese dna'd and registered AMHA and/or AMHR, after 2012, is and will always be an AMHA and/or AMHR miniature horse. Keep the height classifications for showing...keep the height limits with measuring at the top of wither...BUT allow any AMHA and or AMHR horse, registered after the books close, to retain their papers, no matter the height but with breeding papers only, for they are still miniature horses. This allows possiblities on a grand scale for promoting the breed, assisting those farms time to change programs without finacial loss who show or not and allows the public a wide range of miniature horses to choose from.

1. I would suggest measuring ALL horses as proposed at a show. But, if a horse doesn't measure under 38", and it was born before a certain date, then it would be re-measured, using the 'last hair of the mane' location. If it measured under 38" by that measurement, it would be allowed to show. If not, it could not show.
This to me is a better way, for two reasons. First, you will only have a height 'discrepency' (horses that are now 'taller' than the height division in which they entered) between animals in the tallest division., all other height divisions will be competing from the same playing field. Secondly, the Steward will not be constantly having to check the birth/registration date to decide 'how' to measure the horse. They would all be measured the same, they would only have to go to the 'last hair of the mane' for the horses that were over 38".

2. I would change the date from 2011 to some date further in the future, at the very earliest 2012. This would give breeders a chance to change their program to prepare for the change in measuring location. They may want to breed their mares to a different stallion. Too many mares have already been bred to foal in 2011 for the owners to make a change now.

Perhaps combine these two ideas? The registry could make it so that all horses are measured first at the top of the withers, and if they measure above 34/38' (or whatever they raise the standard to), and were born before the proposed date (2011), they could be remeasured at the last hairs of the mane, as stated above.

These horses that are already born and registered could still show. The registry could then create a 'breeding only division'. Horses in this division would be horses that are the ofspring of horses registered before the proposed date (2011), and grew over the height standards. These horses would not loose thier heritage or value as miniature horses since they could still be used for breeding. They could not be shown however, due to their height. This would create incentive for breeders to breed for horses within the height range, rather then continuing to breed horses that are above 38inches (or whatever the standards are raised to) at the withers.

This division could also be opened up to other horses that outgrow thier papers. Aslong as both parents are registered, if the resulting baby outgrows the 38' height range, the baby would not be considered grade, but rather a miniature without showing rights?

I think adding this division would not only help with the problems concerning changing the point of measurement, but could be a step in becoming a BREED rather then a HEIGHT REGISTRY.

Just my thoughts.....

Please ignore my awful spelling.

 

[Songcatcher]

On that note form your previous posts I gather you breed A size horses that will never measure out. I do not believe bigger is better but I did so happens to by B size horses last year and now I am to be penalized for it. I may be less passionate about the issue if I didn't love the B breeding stock I currently own and saved alot of money to buy/promote and show. I do not own one too big AMHR horse and don't push the limits there are no ASPC shows here and 2 of my Bs are AMHR only I didn't think to ask their wither measurement when I bought them. Now what do I breed them to A's I don't know that I would since one is going to finish 37".

All of the "A"s I currently own would easily measure under 34 at the withers, but could easily produce foals that would go over. It happens, and I am OK with that. I have previously owned "A" horses that would have gone over if measured at the withers, and I would have been OK with passing this rule then. It would have improved the breed (IMO). That is just part of the pitfalls of breeding a height registry.

 

[~Lisa~]

If we are going to measure at the withers then we need to adjust our heights so that current horses are not suddenly excluded and left paperless.

The proposal as written

VI Part 7 C Page 103With 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.

Carin I think you must have missed it but this has already been addressed in the original proposal as written and many have brought up even more additions but it clearly said starting in 2011 (even if they started in 2012) and that all horses previously registered will still retain papers and would still be able to show as long as they continued to measure in at last mane hairs. No currently registered horses that are honestly in size would become paperless or grade or be unable to show

R3 - you have obviously put a lot of thought into this when it came up with AMHA and your tweaks to this proposal sound wonderful

 

[muffntuf]

If you suggest to open up a breeding only division of the AMHR - do you also suggest to add in all the breeding stock show classes, since we are still supposed to be able to show the now over B's? This is a huge proposal. This would add several days to AMHR Nationals as well as local shows would have to expand.

This is a huge gap in the proposal.

 

[txminipinto]

The proposal as written

Carin I think you must have missed it but this has already been addressed in the original proposal as written and many have brought up even more additions but it clearly said starting in 2011 (even if they started in 2012) and that all horses previously registered will still retain papers and would still be able to show as long as they continued to measure in at last mane hairs. No currently registered horses that are honestly in size would become paperless or grade or be unable to show

R3 - you have obviously put a lot of thought into this when it came up with AMHA and your tweaks to this proposal sound wonderful

No, I read it and totally understood it. My issue with it is there are foals inutero that are not registered, that would mature out of the height limits, and would be paperless if they were AMHR only. You raise the point where we measure then you need to raise the height allowed. Or not do it at all. This proposal will hurt the B AMHR only breeder. And I'm not ok with "improving" the "breed" by hurting established farms.

There does need to be study done at Nationals on the difference in height between mane hair and withers. I think then, and only then, can the membership make an educated decision that will effect everyone.

 

[rabbitsfizz]

My brain is starting to hurt form reading all these excellent arguments and suggestions!

For me this is a no brainer.

We measure to the top of the withers, always have.

34" and under to the withers.

If I had a dollar for every American horse who has been brought into the country only to be measured out I should be rich.

A club had to be started that took horses up to 38" in order to cater for these horses (it is doing very well!)

One thing I would have thought was self evident:

You cannottake away the papers of a registered horse because you change the rules of the society, I am pretty sure you would be sued if you tried, so making a way of doing this legally is imperative.

Instead of having to measure two ways, why not consider giving permanent height cards to all the at present LHOTM measured horses, once they are adult and if they measure in?

If this leeway were to be given to horses bred before 2011, permanently, it would all, eventually, take care of itself.

As to breeding, well, to be quite frank, breeding a horse that is 38" LHOTM is always going to be a lottery. You would just have to breed to smaller mares, and adjust your programme accordingly.

We breed as the market dictates.

This time, just this once, it is the Society that is dictating, not the market.

Since people do not whinge and whine about market dictates, I really fail to see why they are doing it about a society dictate that will benefit the entire "breed" AMHA and R, both.