Measurment proposal

[AshleyNicole]

There is a BIG difference in poor conformation and dwarfism.

lol I think it came out wrong or I looked at it wrong....never mind I've had a long week :0 ) I think my point was more about people cheating or getting around the rules no matter where you measure or what you do. some people are just dishonest no matter what and I wish the rules where enforced a bit better I guess, cause really gluing in mare hairs at nationals this year??? lol thats a little much. I am not sure why some are so against raising the height if we measure at the withers.... I realize that some will say many horses that wouldn't have measured in before will now be able to measure in but what about all the potential horses we lose if the height isn't changed and this proposal is passed? Just trying to understand the reasoning behind it because i have heard from a couple of people that it means less competition for their smaller horses so they support it for that reason.( yes someone did say that lol) I think I am going to try to do my best to look at both sides and understand them both before going to convention which I think everyone should do. For now essentially eliminating breeding stock and hurting member's farms makes little sense to me.

 

[Sanny]

There are two separate measuring proposals and I hope neither passes.

The one at the base of the withers for ponies and minis says that anything registered before 2011 will still be measured at the last mane hair.

This failed miserably for AMHA and I think we should leave it alone until more is known. I wish they would have tried measuring some this way at Nationals because I think the impact would be much bigger than some think.

Theres a lot of odd ones in there but I do think it shows why so many don't pass because they are written so oddly.

Kay

I am with Kay on this topic and I am absolutely against any measuring change.

Having said that I want to point out that being in favor instead of against the proposed changes would probably be to my advantage since I am not a breeder or a trainer so choosing to be against it is not because it would benefit me. If a measuring change passes I should be thrilled because I already have a barn full of proven winning show horses that from what I understand would be grandfathered in and that would be able to continue to show for my family for many more years so a measuring rule change wouldn't have a negative affect on my family. If I decide along the way that I want a new show horse I just have to go shopping for a horse that fits the new standards and rules and write out a check. It may be harder to find the right horse and it may cost more money but it will be out there somewhere.

I worry more about the effect this rule change would have for anyone that breeds horses or has horses for sale more because I worry about the future of and the quality of life of the horses and their offspring that lose their value. As far as I understand, anyone one with foals not yet born or not yet with permanent papers better hope that their horses fit in with whatever the specifics of the new measuring rules are otherwise they will have a whole lot of unregistered pet ponies for sale and at some point may be forced to sell them cheap at local auctions and sale barns if they need to cutback their numbers. Depending on the individual horse conformation, increasing the height allowance/limit an inch or so won't necessarily keep a horse that once measured 34" at the last mane hair still within the "A" division if they have high withers. Everybody should take a measuring stick out to their barn and measure every single horse and compare and then decide how they feel about changing the standard. Some horses won't change much when they are measured in each place and others may have a dramatically different result.

Breeders with horses that happen to have the right sort of conformation that there isn't a dramatic difference in height measurements and breeders that own the bloodlines that produced those horses are not going to be negatively affected by a measuring change and as a matter of fact they may be celebrating and raising the prices of their horses because their horses will then be in high demand and they will have buyers coming out of their ears and the highest bidder/person waving the most money will get the horses.

 

[Minimor]

I'm against the top of the withers proposal simply because it doesn't include a height increase to allow for the height of the withers.

It doesn't matter if the rule comes into effect for 2011 or not until 2013. The only advantage to waiting until 2012 or later is people won't have foals do out of horses that are likely to produce foals too tall to be registered under this new rule. The moment that rule gets passed, those taller breeding animals become pretty much worthless. So the rule doesn't come into effect until 2013. So what? Who is going to buy a broodmare in 2011 if she can raise only one registered foal (2012), and foals after that are likely to be too tall for the new (and smaller) height rules? As show horses the taller ones will still have some value, since they can be grandfathered in & continue showing. Breeding stock though--current owners will be stuck keeping their tall horses or giving them away as pets. I am opposed to a rule change that will have this effect on a number of breeders.

As for the base of the withers proposal, I think that is a foolish spot to choose for measuring. It will also allow taller horses into the registry in some cases.

 

[ohmt]

Why are measurement proposals that WILL change so many breeding programs being brought up during one of the biggest recessions our country has ever seen?

Change is good, but only when it comes at the right time. Now is definitely not that time.

 

[CharlesFamily]

I can see both sides of this. I don't breed - and don't ever plan to breed. There are WAY too many really nice farms in my area that do all the hard work for me if I want to buy another horse!

That said, I WOULD like to see the measuring done at a little less arbitrary point than the "last hair of the mane." It would be nice to know that my horse could not suddenly go from an under horse to an over horse simply because he moved while I was clipping and we had a little "oops."

Barbara

 

[kaykay]

worry more about the effect this rule change would have for anyone that breeds horses or has horses for sale more because I worry about the future of and the quality of life of the horses and their offspring that lose their value. As far as I understand, anyone one with foals not yet born or not yet with permanent papers better hope that their horses fit in with whatever the specifics of the new measuring rules are otherwise they will have a whole lot of unregistered pet ponies for sale and at some point may be forced to sell them cheap at local auctions and sale barns if they need to cutback their numbers.

That is also my fear. If this went through you would see a flood of grade miniatures hit the market for the next few years and then what happens? CMHR is busy enough now. We cant just think of ourselves we have to put the horses first. We created this way of measuring so we cant make the horses pay for it because all these years later we decide its not good. First do no harm.

I also agree in a down economy and membership renewals already dropped, its not prudent to make huge changes like this.

 

[muffntuf]

Once again - this is not thought out completely and definitely not looked at from a overall registry and horse viewpoint. If we are serious about this, table it for a year and do a study, it isn't that hard, and why we didn't do it at Nationals when it was discussed, I don't know. Now we can pull back to the local and area shows and do measurements both ways and see how this will effect the registry.

BUT I am hoping the majority people see before convention, that this is not a good idea for the AMHR registry.

 

[OhHorsePee]

Once again - this is not thought out completely and definitely not looked at from a overall registry and horse viewpoint. If we are serious about this, table it for a year and do a study, it isn't that hard, and why we didn't do it at Nationals when it was discussed, I don't know. Now we can pull back to the local and area shows and do measurements both ways and see how this will effect the registry.

BUT I am hoping the majority people see before convention, that this is not a good idea for the AMHR registry.

Did anyone take measurements at Nationals to gather info on the height differences from last hair of the mane to the top of the withers?

 

[stormy]

The whole bit about floods of grade minis hitting the market is just not reasonable at all if there is a grandfather clause. I know for a fact that some of the origional AMHA oversize horses that were grandfathered in are still in breeding herds and have produced many registerable foals for their breeders. I do not see a need to increase the height measurements with a change to measuring at the top of the withers at all and I have many B minis and A minis that would move to B.

That said I do not want to see differant standards of measurement in AMHR then in AMHA, too confusing esp for the international markets that are opening up. My vote...leave it alone, has worked so far. Cheaters will cheat no matter what. If it must be changed go to the top of the withers...bottom of the witers is just rediculous and if the bottom of the withers measurement is proposed it should include a HEIGHT STANDARD DECREASE of 1" or 2", we do not need even bigger minis!!

 

[muffntuf]

Stormy I disagree with you - AMHA oversizing overflows into AMHR B's. Where are AMHR B's supposed to go if they are bred and their offspring goes over the proposed measuring rules without a change to the height requirements?

 

[stormy]

Offspring of AMHA grandfathered horses (many close to 38") were bred to smaller stallions and produced A size foals.

What happens to AMHR horses that go oversize now??? Why would this change mean more oversize horses then are currently being produced?? Just takes an adjustment in you breeding program.

But again my first choice would be leave it alone, last hair of the mane works as well as anything.

 

[kaykay]

Stormy the grandfather clause does not take into account all the foals that will be born next year. What about them?

And you dont just change a whole breeding program over night. I know for me I have foals due in the spring that have been planned for 3 years.

Problem is its not like the horses are actually taller; just measured differently.

Kay

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Once again - this is not thought out completely and definitely not looked at from a overall registry and horse viewpoint. If we are serious about this, table it for a year and do a study, it isn't that hard, and why we didn't do it at Nationals when it was discussed, I don't know. Now we can pull back to the local and area shows and do measurements both ways and see how this will effect the registry.

BUT I am hoping the majority people see before convention, that this is not a good idea for the AMHR registry.

I agree that I sort of feel this whole thing is being rushed. I'm not totally sure yet what I will vote for on this. I probably still won't til I'm at Convention where I can hear the arguments there. Perhaps also hear more information in regards to this as well.

I am also concerned about the 2011 foals if they can't be grandfathered in what happens to them if they do go over? For example the sweepstakes foals. People have spent alot of money on those foals what if they end up going over? I can see possible lawsuits happening.

 

[~Lisa~]

Offspring of AMHA grandfathered horses (many close to 38") were bred to smaller stallions and produced A size foals.

What happens to AMHR horses that go oversize now??? Why would this change mean more oversize horses then are currently being produced?? Just takes an adjustment in you breeding program.

I am in agreement here Stormy I do not see how it would be any different if say it went into effect in 2013 then you would not have unregistered foals..anything born prior to 2013 would be grandfathered in and yes the difference in breeding programs would be simply not breeding for the tallest you can possibly get away with well it would the only difference is the tallest would change

I do not see where this influx of unregistered minis would be?

Unless someone refused to change their program knowing the rule change was (if it passed) coming down the line.

 

[Devon]

As a big horse person just peeking into the mini world I am really having a hard time why people are fighting the withers concept?

As an outsider it just doesn't make sense to me.

Well probably because we feel it is unfair to change it NOW without adjusting something which will put minis height UP 1-3" which is alot.. I promise you it willas I measured 5 differant horses on the farm at both places some I didn't own and many 32" were over and 36.5" mare was 38 1/4"

Yes agreed perhaps the first people of AMHR should of made the withers the way to measure but they didn't and all my horses are 36-37" so I feel it is very wrong to change it now and not fair AT ALL.

 

[rabbitsfizz]

I have a feeling there may be a few hidden agendas here.

It just does not make any sense at all, none, to be offering a solution to what is seen as a problem (measuring) without also assuring people that the problem of over height horses will also be, very swiftly, addressed.

HOWEVER...I do find it a little strange that in the past, when we have had discussions about heights at the withers (I personally have found it to make up to two inches difference in my stock but I have always measured to the withers) people have always told me , quite crossly on occasion, that it made little or no difference. Did we not have a "poll" on this where you could add your findings, not long ago?

It either does, or it does not make a difference.

It would seem that it does.

Up to two inches, in fact.

It would also seem, to me as a measuring to the withers outsider, that a lot of people are pretty keen to keep the heights that they have managed to make their horses by measuring to...well, where exactly?

Some horses manes stop at the top of their withers, some go halfway down their backs.

Which one do you think will get the smaller height?

What is the answer?

Well, obviously getting in line with the rest of the horse world first off, and then I think, to be fair all round, you would have to up the height limits by two inches.

But all this is rhetorical as, even if you got AMHR to get in line, which would be easiest as they already measure AmShets to the withers and they are not invested in breeding under 34" animals, you will never, ever get the AMHA to do it.

Ask yourself why did you start measuring to the last hair of the withers?

Because some "important" members of the (soon to be ) AMHA had horses that would not measure in at the withers, it is as simple as that.

And nothing has changed!!

 

[drivinghoss]

If we change the standard of registry we will be changing the conformation for the worst.

We will reward breeders for producing conformationally incorrect horses.

We can not allow the ulterior motives of a few individuals change a registry that has been successful for 40 years.

We need to keep measuring at the last mane and reward good conformation.

Here are what other breeds say about the withers.

AQHA

Withers

The ideal withers are sharp, prominent and slightly higher than the horse’s hindquarters or croup. A balanced horse will appear to be sloping downhill from front to back. When the withers are higher than the croup, the hindquarters are properly positioned under the body and contribute to athletic ability. Strength of the top line, over the back, loin and croup, also is important in athletic ability and overall balance and soundness.

Arabian

The no-nonsense conformation requirements in the 2009 USEF Rule Book's Arabian, Half-Arabian and Anglo-Arabian section read: "Comparatively small head, profile of head straight or preferably slightly concave below the eyes; small muzzle, large nostrils, extended when in action; large, round, expressive, dark eyes set well apart (glass eyes shall be penalized in Breeding classes); comparatively short distance between eye and muzzle; deep jowls, wide between the branches; small ears (smaller in stallions than mares), thin and well shaped, tips curved slightly inward; long arched neck, set on high and running well back into moderately high withers; long sloping shoulder well laid over with muscle; ribs well sprung; long, broad forearm; short cannon bone with large sinew; short back; loins broad and strong; croup comparatively horizontal; natural high tail carriage. Viewed from rear, tail should be carried straight; hips strong and round; well muscled thigh and gaskin; straight, sound, flat bone; large joints, strong and well

defined; sloping pasterns of good length; round feet of proportionate size. Height from 14.1 to 15.1 hands, with an occasional individual over or under. Fine coat in varying colors of bay, chestnut, grey and black. Dark skin, except under white markings. Stallions especially should have an abundance of natural vitality, animation, spirit, suppleness and balance

Morgan

The withers should be well defined and extend into the back in proportion to the angulation of the shoulder

Equine Science textbook

Withers – The withers is the high point of the horse’s back and is located at the base of the neck between the shoulder blades.

The withers should be prominent and capable of holding a saddle. It should be muscular and well-defined at the top and extend well into the back. The withers serves as a fulcrum over which a ligament attached to the vertebrae in the back and neck acts to help raise and lower the head and neck.

Horses with low, round, thick withers often have rolling gaits and heavy front ends. A flat, mutton withers will not hold the saddle in place. When the withers is prominent, the ligaments and muscles that attach the neck to the thorax move freely and the horse exhibits greater flexibility, coordination and energy in its movement. High, sloping withers with long, sloping shoulders increases the length of muscle in the front end and results in freer action.

 

[disneyhorse]

If we change the standard of registry we will be changing the conformation for the worst.

We will reward breeders for producing conformationally incorrect horses.

We can not allow the ulterior motives of a few individuals change a registry that has been successful for 40 years.

We need to keep measuring at the last mane and reward good conformation.

Here are what other breeds say about the withers.

Can you clarify why measuring an animal at some other point will suddenly change its conformation for the worst?

What "ulterior motives" are you insinuating? I think a lot of people want more consistent measuring, and withers provide a solid landmark for a measuring point, whereas hair is not quite as unyielding of a spot.

Your statement is not clarified by the addition of other breed standards.

Andrea

 

[Songcatcher]

If we change the standard of registry we will be changing the conformation for the worst.

We will reward breeders for producing conformationally incorrect horses.

We can not allow the ulterior motives of a few individuals change a registry that has been successful for 40 years.

We need to keep measuring at the last mane and reward good conformation.

Well, thank you for that broad sweeping generalization that taller horses are automatically better conformed and that smaller horses are automatically poor conformation.

 

[kaykay]

I have no idea who driving hoss is but I would venture a guess to say they are addressing the fact that a lot (NOT ALL!) of miniatures do not have defined withers. In any other horse breed this is considered a fault (mutton withered). Its only in recent years we have seen miniatures with withers again so I hate to see that go backward. Some will take it to the extreme to breed for mutton withered miniatures so they dont measure as tall.

I really wish years ago we had measured like every other horse breed but the fact is we didnt. So to fix it now is extremely difficult.