Measuring Old & New

[Minimor]

I would agree with John--2" across the board.

I would even be okay with 1" across the board if that is what the majority want, but would prefer to see 2".

absolutely do not want to see 0 height adjustment to allow for withers. Given that option I would say a 0 height adjustment should then be accompanied by a different measurement spot--THE BASE OF THE WITHERS. As much as I do not like this idea, I would choose it over using the top of the withers and not adding anything to the current size limits to allow for withers.

 

[JWC sr.]

Okay I just got back from the barn measuring an assortment of horses.

They are all AMHR/AMHA registried.

here are the measurements:

LMH TOW Difference

1. 4 year old mare 32 3/4 33 7/8 1 1/8"

2. 6 year old mare 30 1/2" 31 1/2 1."

3. 7 year old Stallion 30 1/4" 31" 3/4"

4. 9 MTH Filly 29 1/2" 30 1/4" 3/4"

5. 6 MTH Colt 31 1/4 32" 3/4"

6. 8 MTH Colt 29 1/2" 30 5/8" 1 1/8"

7. 7 MTH Filly 29 1/2" 31 1/2" 1 "

8. 6 year old stallion 33 1/2" 34 3/4" 1. 1/4"

9. 22year old Stallion 33 3/4 34 7/8" 1. 1/8"

10 11 year old mare 33 1/4" 34 1/2" 3/4"

11. 9 year old mare 33 1/4" 34 5/8" 1.3/8"

12. 8 year old mare 32 1/2" 33 3/4" 1. 1/4"

13. 6 year old mare 32 5/8" 33 1/2" 7/8"

14. 8 year old mare 32 1/2" 33 3/4" 1.1/4"

15. 3 year old stallion 29 1/4" 30 1/2" 1.1/4"

The average difference in the height was 1.04" if that helps anyone. LOL

We did some more but that is enough I think to give some idea of what we are dealing with.

 

[Magic]

Based on your measurements, John, I'll have to retract my statement saying that foals wouldn't need as much of a height adjustment; I was jumping the gun and assuming, which we really shouldn't do, especially with something this potentially important!

Ok, I'll go measure some of mine because now I'm really curious!

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Will measuring at Nationals really give the association a good base (no pun intended) to draw conclusions from. Will there be perhaps only 50 horses measured or 1000? What if only the no-withered horses are brought up for measurement?

This is a good idea, but will there be enough data to draw a conclusion of what is best needed for the association. Just because farm A, B and C will attend Nationals, what about farms D through Z who can not attend.

It would be far more accurate to put a survey in the Journal and let everyone fill out what the height difference from their farm and show stock measure.

So what if out of those 50 (just for example) 45 measure only 1/2 inch difference, 3 measure 1.5 inches and 2 measure 3 inches difference. Would this mean we would make changes based on the average, or go to the largest one measured?

Just pondering this question.

 

[muffntuf]

Only the membership can request each and every horse be measured at Nationals. If the membership wants it???? I do not show an Nationals, so don't know if that is something needed to be done or not?

 

[~Lisa~]

Thanks John for that info up until you posted it I was thinking Magic was probobly right and most foals do not have much of a tall wither.. guess I was wrong LOL

It does seem to on avg vary 1 inch and I guess I personally could perhaps change my mind and live with a 1 inch variation..

Even though I still stand by not changing it I could agree to 1 inch but for me 40 inches is just simply to large

Of course whatever is decided by the majority I will have to live with anyway

Trace at this point I would think any additional measurements at Nationals would be strictly voluntary - No one would have to agree to measure at TOTW

 

[Yaddax3]

All of the horses measured by John Cherry were in the Under division. I'm guessing the difference from the last hair of the mane to the top of the withers would be bigger with Over minis, particularly those close to the 38-inch limit.

If you want to get an idea of height differential in Over minis before AMHR Nationals, why not ask people with double-registered ASPC-AMHR horses attending Shetland Congress to report both heights?

Their minis/ponies will, of course, be measured at the top of the withers at Congress. Folks can give their last AMHR height measured by a steward. This way, time isn't taken up getting a steward to measure both withers and last hair at Congress. If others are interested in doing such a survey, I'll be happy to take part. We will have four AMHR-ASPC minis/ponies at Congress.

That said, if there is going to be a height allowance, I'd prefer it be two inches for Over minis. My top preference would be to leave it as is.

 

[Magic]

All of the horses measured by John Cherry were in the Under division. I'm guessing the difference from the last hair of the mane to the top of the withers would be bigger with Over minis, particularly those close to the 38-inch limit.

If you want to get an idea of height differential in Over minis before AMHR Nationals, why not ask people with double-registered ASPC-AMHR horses attending Shetland Congress to report both heights?

Their minis/ponies will, of course, be measured at the top of the withers at Congress. Folks can give their last AMHR height measured by a steward. This way, time isn't taken up getting a steward to measure both withers and last hair at Congress. If others are interested in doing such a survey, I'll be happy to take part. We will have four AMHR-ASPC minis/ponies at Congress.

That said, if there is going to be a height allowance, I'd prefer it be two inches for Over minis. My top preference would be to leave it as is.

Excellent idea to measure the double registered ASPC/AMHR's at Congress!!

And I also agree, we really need a very wide-ranging group in order to really get an idea of what the differences are.

 

[Magic]

Ok, my sweat is drying and I'm beginning to rehydrate-- it's hot out there! I measured about 20 horses. Keep in mind that I seem to ALWAYS measure tall, and I didn't have anyone to help me, but since I always measure tall then the heights should at least be consistent.

I measured five foals while they were eating grain; none cared a bit about the measuring stick (it's an official stick) and though they were on rubber mats that aren't exactly level, I got about the same thing from each of them. They are all between two and two and half months old. Four of them are about 30" and the fifth one is 26". There was no appreciable difference in the LHOTM and TOTW at this age.

The others, listed with last hair of the mane and then top of the withers, then the difference as John's was:

26 year old AMHA/AMHR mare: 33"; 35"; 2" (that one suprised me)

3 year old AMHR-only mare: 34"; 35"; 1"

5 year old AMHR-only mare: 38"; 39"; 1"

9 year old AMHR-only mare: 37 1/2"; 39"; 1 1/2" (she's out of two AMHA parents too)

4 year old AMHA/AMHR mare: 33 1/2"; 34 1/2"; 1"

6 year old AMHA/AMHR mare: 34"; 35 1/2"; 1 1/2" (this one surprised me too, if ever there were a witherless horse, I thought this was one. not!)

8 year old AMHR-only mare: 37 3/4"; 38 1/2"; 3/4"

5 year old AMHR-only mare: 36"; 37 1/2"; 1 1/2"

2 year old AMHR-only mare: 37 1/2"; 38 1/2"; 1"

2 year old AMHR-only mare: 37"; 37 1/2"; 1/2"

14 year old AMHA/AMHR stallion: 34"; 35 1/4"; 1 1/4"

2 year old AMHA/AMHR mare: 31 1/4"; 33"; 1 3/4"

6 year old AMHA/AMHR mare: 33 3/4"; 34 1/2"; 3/4"

4 year old AMHA/AMHR mare: 34"; 35"; 1"

4 year old AMHA/AMHR stallion: 33"; 34 1/4"; 1 1/4"

14 year old AMHA/AMHR mare: 34"; 35 3/4"; 1 3/4"

Whew! I hope that more people can measure horses to add to the data.

Maybe I can measure the other half of the herd another day.

*takes another big sip of water*

edited to add semicolons and spaces to make this hopefully easier to read. And... the spaces aren't working. sorry!

 

[Devon]

Here is a few @ the farm a friend and I measured some are shetland I do see it seems they have a larger wither :S I didn't think my mare had a big wither but seems she does.. all but one being B size ;

LOTM 34.5 - Wither - 36.75 ( This was a yearling who would then not be able to show and currently he is a medium B yearling AMHR only no direct shetland in him)

LOTM 36.75 - Wither 38.5 (2 year old AMHR only filly half shetland)

LOTM 33.75 - Wither 35.75 (older style amhr only mare)

LOTM 36.75 - Wither - 39 ( ASPC/AMHR Stallion)

LOTM 36.25 - Wither - 38 (AMHR only mare showed in under 36 division at nationals last year )

 

[JWC sr.]

I will try and do some AMHR B size and AMHR/ASPC tomorrow or the next day. This is really interesting to me. If anyone else has the time to measure some it would be great, then maybe we can come to a consensus of what would be fair to everyone.

Thanks for this thread by the way Karen, it has been an eye opener for a lot of folks I think.

 

[Flying minis]

Ok, I've never posted before, but I thought I'd give a little different viewpoint maybe. I'm new to minis, just got 2 last fall, and started showing them pinto and AMHR. I'm the kind of person you want to attract into your breed - I don't breed, so I buy my horses from you guys that do. I love to show, and can afford to (and DO) spend a bunch of money on my little guys (as do most others, I realize). My minis are both Bs.

First mini, 7 yr old mare, measures 35 inches at withers, 34 3/4 at last hair. So good news either way with her - under all the proposals, she stays able to show, she may even move to an under if the height requirements change! She jumps and drives.

Second mini, 3 yr old mare, high withered (by the way, no ASPC blood) measures 38 1/2 at wither, 36 to 36 1/2 at last hair (last show measurement - which I agree is really somewhat arbitrary - I was actually shocked when she measured that at the first shows we've taken her to). So now I have a problem. If heights aren't changed, the horse that my 14 year old son bought specifically to show in driving and jumping, can't show any more unless heights change (or there's a grandfather clause).

Now speaking as someone coming into the breed, if my mini measured out, I'm just as likely to stop showing minis as to say - oh, guess I have to go get a smaller horse. I'd be plenty unhappy to find out my mini that I just got, that was perfectly legal when I got her, cannot be shown now. My mini is not eligible for ASPC, so that option is not available to me.

I'm with many of the other posters, what is the purpose of the rule change? I'm new, so don't know all the history, but just giving a viewpoint from another angle, or trying to.

 

[RayVik]

I would just like to inject a point with what is happening regarding this or any "proposal" which might be considered or submitted on this topic and that is ... This "Proposal" would no doubt effect the bases of how our horses are measured but my question or point is..... this reflects a concept which actually affects numerous sections of our rules yet the focus is only that of one section. Lets assume so for example a "proposal" such as Karen has drafted is submitted and accepted. It changes one specific section or rule but what about the 50 or so other sections or rules which would also have to be changed if for not other reason then to change 34" to 36" for example...is this not also a "rule change" and would this not also be considered to require a "proposal" to change it...One change of this type would effect numerous other rules so for the membership or BOD to simply accept this or a singular proposal and pass it without anyone having considered the others areas it would in effect put rules in chaos....

I point this out simply to demonstrate the slippery slope we tread on with the present concept of how rules changes are conducted. That is someone submits a "proposal" such as this to change or add one specific rule and it requires other rules to be changed which are not in any "proposal" so how does this process move forward.....The concept of change is wonderful the means and process of doing it creates another can or worms.

 

[Karen S]

Ray’s Comments:

would just like to inject a point with what is happening regarding this or any "proposal" which might be considered or submitted on this topic and that is ... This "Proposal" would no doubt effect the bases of how our horses are measured but my question or point is..... this reflects a concept which actually affects numerous sections of our rules yet the focus is only that of one section. Let’s assume so for example a "proposal" such as Karen has drafted is submitted and accepted. It changes one specific section or rule but what about the 50 or so other sections or rules which would also have to be changed if for not other reason then to change 34" to 36" for example...is this not also a "rule change" and would this not also be considered to require a "proposal" to change it...One change of this type would effect numerous other rules so for the membership or BOD to simply accept this or a singular proposal and pass it without anyone having considered the others areas it would in effect put rules in chaos....

I point this out simply to demonstrate the slippery slope we tread on with the present concept of how rules changes are conducted. That is someone submits a "proposal" such as this to change or add one specific rule and it requires other rules to be changed which are not in any "proposal" so how does this process move forward.....The concept of change is wonderful the means and process of doing it creates another can or worms.

Belinda’s Proposal…Original that was submitted by her:

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 affect 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.

 

Karen’s Hypothetical…one that has been gleamed from what ALL of the posters are wanting….just someone that has given an example of a “what if”:

If a measurement rule was to go into effect, on January 1, 2014:

All Miniatures born up to December 31, 2013 must be registered or on an application for registration, must be on file with the ASPC/AMHR Registry by the 31st of December 2013. These Miniatures would have a yellow measurement card that stated that miniature would be measured at the last hair of the mane. Those horses no matter how old or how long they remain on the show circuit would continue to be measured at the last hair of the main until the day they die. By using a “color” coded measurement card it would alert the Show Stewards that this horse was to be measured at the last hair of the mane. Measurement cards would be requested from the Registry and will have the horses name, registration number and date of birth printed on it. Then that card would be carried to all sanctioned ASPC/AMHR shows to be presented to the Show Steward alerting them as to which way said horse would be measured. Sixty day measurement cards would still be in use marked with the horse’s height on cards as they are currently done.

Effective January 1, 2014:

Those Miniatures that were born starting on January 1, 2014 or those being registered after the December 31st cut off date would have to be measured at the top of the withers. The measurement taken at the top of the withers would be the division that animal would show in. So, if said animal measured 28” at the top of the withers then it would be an “Under” horse. If said horse measured 34/14 at the top of the withers then it would be an “Over” horse. If said horse that was papered with the ASPC but hardship in as a miniature measured 38” at the top of the withers, then said ASPC horse can obtain its AMHR registration papers. If horse has AMHA registration papers and wishes to hardship in after the December 31st, 2013 date, said AMHA horse MUST be measured at the top of the withers and shown in the height division set forth in the rules for any and all AMHR miniatures.

All Miniatures will stand square, head in a natural position, no lifting of head, no lowering of head and miniature must be free of all clothing while being measured. Rules that are current in ASPC/AMHR rulebook on page 104 will remain in affect. If animal is found to be “over” for the division of which it was to be shown in, then owner/trainer/agent must move animal up into the over division.

This would allow everyone to get those horses registered by the 31st of December 2013 as ample time has been afforded and would allow those that had mares bred in 2012 for foals born in 2013 to be under the old system. Then on January 1st 2014 ALL miniatures born after December 31st, 2013 must be measured at the top of the withers.

Karen’s Second Part:

Ok,

Since I tried to do a possible scenario on the measuring, using our current height measurement in the rulebook, what most are missing is that the heights in the rulebook according to the age divisions would have to be moved. In reading through all of these post most are not wanting the height catagories to change. Am I correct? See example below as to a possible change in the rules for raising the age/heights:

Example: A miniature 2 year old measuring 33" & under at the last hair of the mane, now at the withers measures 33.5. How many of those 33" at the last hair of the mane have measured out of their age bracket at any shows? I don't know but do know in the Shetland Foundation division we have a mare showing in our area that this same scenario happened this year. As a two year old she measured 41.5 (can only be 41” or under as a 2 yr old), but as a three year old she can be 41.5 if she stays there or no more than 42".

I think this is what the most of you are concerned about is how tall will they actually be.

Karen’s question:

Ok,

Just so I understand...you all would approve of measuring at the top of the withers if the height/age divisions was raised accordingly?

Karen using current rules and applying what is being asked:

Ok, I need you all to work with me here....I'm going to post the CURRENT heights/ages from the rulebook. Cut and past this into your remarks putting what height limits in each division you would like to see. If you like the "Under" division the way it is now, just put "Leave As Is" if you don't like the "Under" division under the current rules, but would like to raise the height limits, then give me what you would want in the height catagories. The same thing applies to the "Over" division. I'll give you what is current in our rulebook and my example.

Current Rules for Measuring of Miniature Horses:

Part 9 Height Divisions...page 105 ASPC/AMHR rulebook

A. Miniature Horses

1. AMHR shall have 2 height divisions

a. Under:

Horses 3 years of age and older-34" and Under

Two Year Olds-33" & Under

Yearlings-32" & Under

Foals of current year-30" & Under

b. Over:

Horses 3 years of age and older-over 34" but not over 38"

Two Year Olds-Over 33" to 37"

Yearlings-Over 32"-36"

Foal of current year-Over 30" to 32"

Karen's Example:

A. Miniature Horses

a. Under:

Horses 3 years of age and older-35" & Under

Two Years Old-34" & Under

Yearlings-33" & Under

Foals of current year-32" & Under

b. Over:

Horses 3 years of age and older-Over 35" but not over 40"

Two Years Old-Over 34" to 39"

Yearlings-Over 33" to 38"

Foals of current year-Over 30" to 32"

Ray, maybe you need to ask that question to the person that submitted the proposal and find out from them. All I’m doing is taking from the very pages of the original postings which was 27+ pages, condensing what everyone is wanting and trying to put it in black and white so they can see for themselves on paper what it would look like. No I didn’t make a proposal on measuring especially since this was brought up after the July 1st deadline, just trying to sort out what has been presented to this entire forum. Plus, it was posted to this forum yesterday that arrangements has been made to measure miniatures at the AMHR Nationals at both the top of the withers and the last hair of the mane for height comparisons. Yes, I realize one proposal if not done right or thought out thoroughly can cause a domino affect to all rules that are within our rulebook. I've seen it happen more than once.

Again, thank you for your thoughts and comments and participation in these discussions in bringing to lite some problems that could come out of this original proposal, they are appreciated.

Karen

 

[RayVik]

My post was not in anyway directed at any one person...I was simply pointing out that a topic or rule change of this magnitude is not something so simple as to be accepted or rejected on on the bases a "proposal" which is a simple 50 word paragraph. It has very far reaching and significant effects on the entire organization. Not to mention that for example and as the discussion reflects a person may agree to one means of measuring for the purpose of showing but not for the purpose of registration..and then agree that the raising 34" to 36" in ok for this but raising 38" to 40" is not acceptable for that....But if a "proposal" to change the way of measuring is not accepted or voted down and a proposal to change the height from 34' to 36' is accepted you have a completely different problem or situation but that is the risk of our present tradition of rule change.

Once again the flaws in the process we have "traditionally" used bears its ugly head...so we have a significant issue we are told will be presented for action and we are in a paradox with how to correctly deal with it ..... So short of total rejection because it cannot be implemented regardless of how important or how badly it might be wanted or needed it simply cannot be done leaving this organization one more year behind in advancing to a higher level or moving forward....simply because we have chosen tradition over protocol....

 

[muffntuf]

Ray that is true, you need to change all sections this pertains too, but I wonder if Belinda just put a synopsis of her proposal out - I don't think she would do just one section, she's been a BOD for quite a while and a chair on a committee - so that's what I was thinking when she posted it.