Open the AMHA Studbook to Hardship AMHR Horses

[Little Hooves]

Allow AMHR horses to be eligible for hardshipping into AMHA in 2014. This proposed rule change is up for voting at this year's AMHA annual meeting. Because I am unable to go, I was encouraged to create this in hopes that my voice could be heard and help others who will be voting make an informed decision.

If you are an AMHA member and support the cause to open the books to hardship AMHR horses into AMHA, then sign this petition and pass it on to other AMHA members. Your AMHA member number is not required, but recommended and will not be displayed. The PDF linked to this petition documents reasons that benefit this decision (it is still in the process of being edited, but the rough draft has been uploaded due to time constraints).

Read the benefits of this rule change​

Read about Inbreeding Depression (the downside to closing studbooks)​

SIGN THE PETITION​

 

[sfmini]

I am not sure who encouraged you to put up an electronic petition, but it won't be recognized as the only form of petition that is accepted is that with actual physical signatures.

That is per my six years past experience on the Board.

The best thing you can and must do is contact your directors and let them know how you feel!

Personally, I am 100% behind this, and also of the opinion that in order to become an actual breed, an AMHA horse bred to an AMHA horse should always have AMHA registered offspring no matter the mature height of the offspring. Leave the shows alone with the 34 and under limit but don't worry so much about the registered stock.

 

[horsehug]

Jody, I sure wish you were still on the board!

By the way, do Faxed signatures not count either.........just in case there was still time for that?

Susan O.

 

[horsehug]

I emailed both my directors and asked for their support of the petition, or of the basic premise of it, if the petition itself does not count.

Thanks for trying to do this, Brenda. I hope everyone will contact their directors also like Jody suggested.

If you go to the AMHA website and scroll to the bottom and click on Regional Map you can find your directors and email them.

http://www.amha.org/

Susan O.

 

[Little Hooves]

Knowing this, I do have everyone's email address who signed and can inform them to mail in a signature. It's still good to see the support, signatures or not.

I emailed both my directors and asked for their support of the petition, or of the basic premise of it, if the petition itself does not count.

Thanks for trying to do this, Brenda. I hope everyone will contact their directors also like Jody suggested.

If you go to the AMHA website and scroll to the bottom and click on Regional Map you can find your directors and email them.

http://www.amha.org/

Susan O.

 

[Little Hooves]

But this just brings be to a second thought - is this my foot-in-mouth moment? Does this policy of only actual physical signatures validate that the registry is still in the dark ages? Electronic signatures are accepted by many businesses, organizations, and government, so why is AMHA still lingering on the physical signature and requiring everyone who wants to vote to show up to the meeting? When your registry is world-wide, these sort of requirements make it more exclusive than inclusive.

I guess I am just wondering how long it will take for AMHA to evolve and catch up with the demands of the modern world - - - you mean to say they don't "have an app for that"?

Change needs to start somewhere.

 

[horsehug]

So do we mail our signature to AMHA? And will they have a written copy of your petition, Brenda, for us to mention that is what the signature goes with?

Thanks,

Susan O.

 

[sfmini]

Electronic signatures are legal but only in secured applications for obvious reasons. AMHA has no "petition" software with secure access to ENSURE that only a single member logs in and signs. So not in the dark ages, you just need to be aware of the actual technology behind those electronic signatures.

They also don't have the personpower to assemble a pile of faxes and do something with them. Also, as noted in the rule book there is only ONE way to change a rule and anything else can be tossed.

Contact your region's directors and make sure they know your feelings on the issue, they can be buried with those emails, that is their job (and they will probably shoot me for that) but that is the reality.

As for remote voting for members, to my knowledge not a single soul has ever proposed the change along with a feasible, cost effective solution. Don't just propose or complain that you want it changed, you have to also help be part of the solution and it is a tricky one, and will be expensive to implement.

Like it or not, the money has to come from somewhere, a new source or in increased fees.

 

[Little Hooves]

Electronic signatures are legal but only in secured applications for obvious reasons. AMHA has no "petition" software with secure access to ENSURE that only a single member logs in and signs. So not in the dark ages, you just need to be aware of the actual technology behind those electronic signatures.

They also don't have the personpower to assemble a pile of faxes and do something with them. Also, as noted in the rule book there is only ONE way to change a rule and anything else can be tossed.

Contact your region's directors and make sure they know your feelings on the issue, they can be buried with those emails, that is their job (and they will probably shoot me for that) but that is the reality.

As for remote voting for members, to my knowledge not a single soul has ever proposed the change along with a feasible, cost effective solution. Don't just propose or complain that you want it changed, you have to also help be part of the solution and it is a tricky one, and will be expensive to implement.

Like it or not, the money has to come from somewhere, a new source or in increased fees.

It's quite simple to find the money to pay for the voting. And I promise you, I will get to the point of doing my own legwork as this petition and such was a last-minute effort, etc. I have not played much of a role in the workings of the registries before, so I appreciate your input. I will research the matters more for proposing my own rule changes and offering my own suggestions. I can already think of several cost-efficient ways a registry can operate an absentee vote.

Wish I could discuss this more, but I am late for work! Thank you again for your input - sorry for my near-sightedness.

 

[AshleyNicole]

Hi all... I try to stay neutral in things but I just want to point out a few things that came to me through e-mail.. Some people wish to stay anonymous but are most sincere in their thoughts.. So please look at this from another view..

The point of the e-mail I have got is…

NOT everyone believes in the opinion that Line Breeding is a BAD thing.. There are several people that have many, many years experience in the selective and sensible use of line breeding to success in improving breed type.. So please do not assume that all line breeding is a bad thing.. and for USING Line Breeding a reason of allowing AMHR horses to be hardship in is not a really good argument.

My personal thought is…

I personally would like to point out an example with the Standardbred race horse industry which my husband & I am involved in (breeding & racing) for nearly 25 years.. Line breeding is done quite frequently in the Standardbred business and because of that, horses continually to get faster and better then their past generations.. I used to think it is CRAZY reading some of the pedigrees of the horses but seeing the solid improvements of the breed proves it does work if careful selective breeding is used.

OK, back to the opinion of another e-mail I received..

QUOTE from e-mail >>> "I feel it would be very smart to mention the good business policy of "Supply and Demand"."

AND this person also mentioned that limiting the hardshipping would help keep the value up on the AMHA, under 34" Miniature horse as it has in the past..

BY THE WAY.. the e-mail came from a respected/successful breeder of AMHA/AMHR horses.

So my conclusion to the e-mails I have received is…

Please look at both sides of opinions in which way you, as a member of AMHA wish to see the direction it will go..

I hope I did a good summery of the e-mails I received..

I have to agree with you and the emails you received. We recently have gotten into the Thoroughbred business and I, as always have really researched the pedigrees and it is the same as what you have said about the Standardbreds. Line breeding is done a lot in Thoroughbreds as well and as a result horses get faster and better. I believe it is done in most horse breeds with good results so I am confused why mini owners are against line breeding. We are seriously considering showing in AMHA from now on instead of AMHR and for several reasons in edition to the ones you mentioned wouldn't support this.

 

[valshingle]

I'm not going to get into the discussion of line-breeding or in-breeding.

I want to tell you that if you have a strong opinion on this issue, then you need to let your director know. I have emailed all the directors informing them of my opinion.

I want to respond to the issue of supply and demand. I do not have any training in marketing, but I believe that low prices are not always due to over supply. People's interest can change and something that was once 'hot' becomes yesterday's fad. If a company keeps producing a product that people don't want then the prices drop. Avocado colored appliances are in very limited supply these days, but I don't see their prices shooting up or the demand for them increasing. Fashion also drives the market.

Whether you like it or not, the Shetland influence is what is 'hot' in the show ring right now - in halter and driving. Being able to bring some of this blood into AMHA (as long as they are under 34") will allow breeders to add this to their breeding program and produce more marketable horses. Otherwise I fear more and more people will jump on the AMHR/ASPC bandwagon and leave AMHA.

This is just my opinion - Flame away!

 

[JMS Miniatures]

IMO having a closed registry they are limiting themselves at accepting new blood come into the registry. By allowing continued registration for AMHR horses you may potentially get the next best thing. Sure line breeding can work but eventually it will fizzle out. If someone wants a purebred AMHA horse well they are out there, people can find them, but how many of those are AMHA/AMHR, would it make that horse any less value? Honestly what is the difference between AMHA and AMHR? Only difference is AMHA does not accept the bigger minis which is perfectly fine, but if thats the only difference then whats the reason by not accepting Under AMHR minis? But AMHA wanted to stay away from AMHR so I don't see this pass, I'll be very shocked to see members vote for it. I think AMHA is rushing this, and haven't thought this out at all and I can see something come up and bite them in the butt.

 

[valshingle]

I was dismayed to hear back from one AMHA director who is against allowing AMHR horses to hardship in - strictly because they think that by limiting the number of AMHA horses the prices will go back up.

 

[sfmini]

JMS, this has been in the works for over five years so this isn't some spur of the moment decision.

Also, AMHA DID NOT MAKE THIS PROPOSAL OR DECISION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY A MEMBER, PASSED COMMITTEE REVIEW(AMHA MEMBERS), AND WAS THEN PUT BEFORE THE MEMBERSHIP A YEAR BEFORE THE MEMBERSHIP VOTED TO PASS the closing of the books.

AMHA is not a they, AMHA is us, the membership. The office never changes rules, neither does the executive committee or board unless it is considered a fiscal or safety emergency. Otherwise ONLY the members change the rules and bylaws.

 

[valshingle]

Jody - Obviously you know that I know that the BOD and EC aren't the ones who will be making the decision. It will be the members in attendance that are voting. I can't be there and wanted the Directors know my opinion, they may bring up some of the points in the discussion prior to the vote. And I'd like to think that my area Directors will keep in mind the majority opinion of their regional members when voting (that's if my opinion is in the majority, lol). I can potentially see the EC intervening, as they have in the past, even though this should be a membership vote.

Not arguing, just clarifying.

 

[sfmini]

I know Val, that is why I directed my comment to JMS, not you.

I wouldn't stop at just your own directors, contact them all.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

JMS, this has been in the works for over five years so this isn't some spur of the moment decision.

Also, AMHA DID NOT MAKE THIS PROPOSAL OR DECISION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY A MEMBER, PASSED COMMITTEE REVIEW(AMHA MEMBERS), AND WAS THEN PUT BEFORE THE MEMBERSHIP A YEAR BEFORE THE MEMBERSHIP VOTED TO PASS the closing of the books.

AMHA is not a they, AMHA is us, the membership. The office never changes rules, neither does the executive committee or board unless it is considered a fiscal or safety emergency. Otherwise ONLY the members change the rules and bylaws.

I didn't mean to make it sound like that in my post. I know how it works. How many members that were there that wanted it pass? Just the select few that were there. I think its important to hear all the voices of it's members. As far as planning goes what are they doing? Have they covered everything competely? It's a big step that I would be curious to hear what their plans are.

 

[kaykay]

AND this person also mentioned that limiting the hardshipping would help keep the value up on the AMHA, under 34" Miniature horse as it has in the past..

I strongly disagree with that. Obviously it is not working. When I first started it was a big deal to own AMHA/AMHR registered horses. Then the AMHA shows started to disappear. After much frustration I just totally switched out of AMHA horses due to the lack of shows and financial instability of the org.

If AMHR hardshipping was allowed it would bring much needed funds back into AMHA and hopefully they could get more shows going as they had in the past.

 

[valshingle]

Jody - that's what I thought. Believe me, I emailed every Director. I've only heard back from 2 so far.

JMS - I can tell you from experience that the committees work very hard to research for impact most proposals that go to the membership. HOWEVER, certain Rule Change Proposals must (according to the rule book) be passed on to the membership for a vote (meaning they can't be killed in committee), regardless of how well thought out or not they are. The committee involved can recommend a proposal be passed or not, or can say they have no opinion.

 

[sfmini]

Only Bylaw changes must go to the membership for a vote and the committee can only express their opinion.

For the rest, if a rule change proposal isn't thorough, would cost too much money, would not be legal, or violate the bylaws, the committee can recommend to the board that the rule change proposal not go forward to the membership and the board will vote yea or nay. They try not to do that when possible, as they feel the membership has a right to express their opinions, but there are some proposals that just cannot go up for vote because of some of what I listed above.