POLL COMMENTS - Use this to make comments about Poll
- Thread starter R3
- Start date
Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:
I was just informed that I left off a category on the Poll for an answer. It had to do with which registry you are associated with. I left off AMHA/AMHR (equally)... sorry, that was just an oversight, I was trying to get everything and missed that one.
Since AMHA/AMHR (equally) is not an option, please pick one of the other categories and put a note on this Comment Topic. Let me know which one you put on the poll, and that you wanted AMHA/AMHR (equal). I will adjust the numbers on the poll when I get ready to take the results to the AMHA Jume meeting.
So, if you put AMHA/AMHR (primarily AMHA) when you really wanted AMHA/AMHR (equally), I will subtract one off of the (primarily AMHA) and add it to a new column that I will create for (equally).
If I could add the category to the poll, I would, but I am told that if I try to change the poll now, that it will lose the current votes. So, just let me know, and I will do the 'corrections' separately.
Thanks
Since AMHA/AMHR (equally) is not an option, please pick one of the other categories and put a note on this Comment Topic. Let me know which one you put on the poll, and that you wanted AMHA/AMHR (equal). I will adjust the numbers on the poll when I get ready to take the results to the AMHA Jume meeting.
So, if you put AMHA/AMHR (primarily AMHA) when you really wanted AMHA/AMHR (equally), I will subtract one off of the (primarily AMHA) and add it to a new column that I will create for (equally).
If I could add the category to the poll, I would, but I am told that if I try to change the poll now, that it will lose the current votes. So, just let me know, and I will do the 'corrections' separately.
Thanks
I chose 'Other' as to how/where I first 'heard about the BOTW notion, because I heard about the 'new and improved' site for measurement of AMHA horses at a little one day clinic with a SW area Miniature trainer immediately after the Feb. Annual meeting....could hardly bring myself to believe such a thing had actually been allowed to happen until it was verified by being alluded to on LB!
I REALLY would like to have seen an additional choice included in the list regarding the BOTW....I chose 'I tried and I couldn't find the 'spot' (or words to that effect), but strongly feel there should have been a choice to say, "I don't believe there IS a legally defensible EXACT spot that can be precisely defined as the BOTW", or words to that effect, because THAT would much more precisely reflect what I believe.
I also would have liked to see all of the poll questions addressing what you think should happen UPON ENACTMENT of the BOTW thing-such as, should honest owners be penalized by charges for reinstatement and/or late registration of 'now-qualifying' horses---be listed FIRST, because the very listing of them AFTER the primary question of whether you think the BOTW plan should become effective on 1/1/09, seems to me to PRESUME that this IS going to happen, no matter WHAT.... IMO, it would have been more 'neutral' to list those questions FIRST, then ask if, considering all of THOSE factors/unaddressed issues, poll respondents think it is the right thing to do to let the BOTW go forward as it is currently set to do.
All that said--I appreciate the thoughts behind the poll, and frankly, am seeing exactly the kinds of responses I'd anticipated, from discussions here on LB. I do hope the BOD will be taking note of this poll's results.
Margo
I REALLY would like to have seen an additional choice included in the list regarding the BOTW....I chose 'I tried and I couldn't find the 'spot' (or words to that effect), but strongly feel there should have been a choice to say, "I don't believe there IS a legally defensible EXACT spot that can be precisely defined as the BOTW", or words to that effect, because THAT would much more precisely reflect what I believe.
I also would have liked to see all of the poll questions addressing what you think should happen UPON ENACTMENT of the BOTW thing-such as, should honest owners be penalized by charges for reinstatement and/or late registration of 'now-qualifying' horses---be listed FIRST, because the very listing of them AFTER the primary question of whether you think the BOTW plan should become effective on 1/1/09, seems to me to PRESUME that this IS going to happen, no matter WHAT.... IMO, it would have been more 'neutral' to list those questions FIRST, then ask if, considering all of THOSE factors/unaddressed issues, poll respondents think it is the right thing to do to let the BOTW go forward as it is currently set to do.
All that said--I appreciate the thoughts behind the poll, and frankly, am seeing exactly the kinds of responses I'd anticipated, from discussions here on LB. I do hope the BOD will be taking note of this poll's results.
Margo
Westwood Farms
Well-Known Member
I am A and R equally... no ASPC
McBunz, I am also curious when anyone has ever used the 'Base of the Withers' as a 'measuring point'. But, since some people have said they knew all about it... I thought it was only fair to put it as an option. But, if anyone who answered they knew about for a while would like to come on here an explain, I would be interested to hear, as it is brand new to me.
Margot, I agree on the measuring point. I don't personally think there is 'A' point that can be legally defended as a measuring point, when discussing the BOTW. To even begin to get to that point, they (AMHA) would have to first determine the anatomical location (the notch with the 'bone') that is the measuring point, and then everyone would have to be told how to find that point. It would be possible to decide the anatomy issue, but I don't think it would then be possible to locate that same place on all horses without extensive training.
Even if the training was available for 'certified measurers', what about the rest of the membership? We are putting our reputations on the line, and we open ourselves up for lawsuits every time we indicate a measurment on our horses. We are legally responsible when we put the heights on registrations, transfers, and bills of sale. If we can't find the right place to measure, we are liable if it is done wrong. This puts the entire membership in jeopardy, it involves much more than just the showring.
Margot, I agree on the measuring point. I don't personally think there is 'A' point that can be legally defended as a measuring point, when discussing the BOTW. To even begin to get to that point, they (AMHA) would have to first determine the anatomical location (the notch with the 'bone') that is the measuring point, and then everyone would have to be told how to find that point. It would be possible to decide the anatomy issue, but I don't think it would then be possible to locate that same place on all horses without extensive training.
Even if the training was available for 'certified measurers', what about the rest of the membership? We are putting our reputations on the line, and we open ourselves up for lawsuits every time we indicate a measurment on our horses. We are legally responsible when we put the heights on registrations, transfers, and bills of sale. If we can't find the right place to measure, we are liable if it is done wrong. This puts the entire membership in jeopardy, it involves much more than just the showring.
I have to tell you, that just got me laughing. Sorry......just being honest here.
I don't know any animal ever that has been measured that way so how could anyone have know about this measuring point "for a long time." Please clue me in as well, because I just don't get it myself.
And what's the definition of a "long time" ?
Mona
Well-Known Member
Margaret
Well-Known Member
I personally have no problem with measuring from the base of the withers.
It seems alot easier to find than the last hair of the mane to me.
It seems alot easier to find than the last hair of the mane to me.
Jill
Aspiring Cowgirl
I agree.
Ideally, we'd measure minis like "real horses" but the last hair of the mane is not any more or less ridiculous than the base of the withers.
And, I think this is some people's way of saying smaller is not always (or maybe even usually) nicer? Got to be a reason people pushed to have the taller horses in and I think it's because some of them are so outstanding.
I've always loved the looks of the B's and only have one, a gelding, now but may have more as time goes by and who knows... some may be AMHR B's with legitimate AMHA papers
Last edited by a moderator:
Kim~Crayonboxminiatures
Well-Known Member
AMHA/AMHR equally
I wish that minis could be measured the same as standard horse measurement (top of the withers), I will keep dreaming...
I wish that minis could be measured the same as standard horse measurement (top of the withers), I will keep dreaming...
maryann
Well-Known Member
I had to answer the one question with "I don’t care where we measure from."
Even thought that was not my complete answer. I really don't care where we measure from
as long as the impact of the change is researched throughly and questions are answered long
before the change is made. Mary ann
Even thought that was not my complete answer. I really don't care where we measure from
as long as the impact of the change is researched throughly and questions are answered long
before the change is made. Mary ann
McBunz
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2004
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 0
"I personally have no problem with measuring from the base of the withers.
It seems alot easier to find than the last hair of the mane to me."
You can see the last hair of the mane.. and Vets cannot agree on where the base of the withers is.
How can this be easier..????
It seems alot easier to find than the last hair of the mane to me."
You can see the last hair of the mane.. and Vets cannot agree on where the base of the withers is.
How can this be easier..????
Agree 110% with what Mary Lou said!
I would also add--the 'put your first and second finger together and 'slide' them forward (toward the horse's head) until you 'feel' the first finger start to rise', then measure there' method that has been suggested in other posts on LB, essentially means that said measurement will be, in fact, taken at near the LOWEST POINT OF THE BACK on many horses-or the BAREST distance ahead of that...If you have studied conformation, and evaluated it on MANY horses, as I have, that is obvious.
I ask you all--how could it be CLEARER that the 'real' aim of this change was almost certainly to allow numerous taller horses to 'magically' be able to be called "34 inches or less".... you know, I get the distinct feeling that there are those who apparently believe that many of us are just too dumb to recognize real motives. We are 'fed' claims such as 'we are tired of cheating(YES! We can ALL agree on THAT!), and this change will 'stop cheating'!(SAY WHAT????) STRICT and EVEN, ACROSS THE BOARD enforcement of already existing rules will go further to do that than ANY OTHER ACTION--but, the BACKING for such enforcement has to come unequivocably from the VERY TOP of the organization! How many believe that has been the case in recent years?
I DO care where the horses are measured-I favor the universal HORSEMEN'S standard of the top of the withers--a bony PROMINENCE that is very hard to 'disguise'. That said, to change from one somewhat subjective site to an even MORE subjective one simply makes no logical sense-so, why notreturn to the time-honored LHOTM!
Is LHOTM perfect? Oh,heck, NO---it could benefit, IMO, from some rule adjustments that would LEGALLY allow for a BIT of 'leeway' based on what we who have spent time measuring horses as accurately as POSSIBLE know 'can' occur in measuring situations (notice I said a BIT-NOT inches, but perhaps, portions of inches!), but, LHOTM IS workable even as it is today,if/when current rules are SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED!
In my opinion, the 'real aim' was to allow taller horses into AMHA--if that was the case, why the HECK not just admit it, work it out fairly, and make the changes, under specified procedure, to allow it, up front and forthrightly, instead of allowing this apparent 'backdoor' approach, while continuing to "trumpet" that 'AMHA horses are NEVER over 34" tall"??
I believe that carrying on to allow the BOTW change to take effect will be damaging to the AMHA. I DON'T believe that is something that ANY of us, who are longtime members and supporters, want....
Margo
I would also add--the 'put your first and second finger together and 'slide' them forward (toward the horse's head) until you 'feel' the first finger start to rise', then measure there' method that has been suggested in other posts on LB, essentially means that said measurement will be, in fact, taken at near the LOWEST POINT OF THE BACK on many horses-or the BAREST distance ahead of that...If you have studied conformation, and evaluated it on MANY horses, as I have, that is obvious.
I ask you all--how could it be CLEARER that the 'real' aim of this change was almost certainly to allow numerous taller horses to 'magically' be able to be called "34 inches or less".... you know, I get the distinct feeling that there are those who apparently believe that many of us are just too dumb to recognize real motives. We are 'fed' claims such as 'we are tired of cheating(YES! We can ALL agree on THAT!), and this change will 'stop cheating'!(SAY WHAT????) STRICT and EVEN, ACROSS THE BOARD enforcement of already existing rules will go further to do that than ANY OTHER ACTION--but, the BACKING for such enforcement has to come unequivocably from the VERY TOP of the organization! How many believe that has been the case in recent years?
I DO care where the horses are measured-I favor the universal HORSEMEN'S standard of the top of the withers--a bony PROMINENCE that is very hard to 'disguise'. That said, to change from one somewhat subjective site to an even MORE subjective one simply makes no logical sense-so, why notreturn to the time-honored LHOTM!
Is LHOTM perfect? Oh,heck, NO---it could benefit, IMO, from some rule adjustments that would LEGALLY allow for a BIT of 'leeway' based on what we who have spent time measuring horses as accurately as POSSIBLE know 'can' occur in measuring situations (notice I said a BIT-NOT inches, but perhaps, portions of inches!), but, LHOTM IS workable even as it is today,if/when current rules are SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED!
In my opinion, the 'real aim' was to allow taller horses into AMHA--if that was the case, why the HECK not just admit it, work it out fairly, and make the changes, under specified procedure, to allow it, up front and forthrightly, instead of allowing this apparent 'backdoor' approach, while continuing to "trumpet" that 'AMHA horses are NEVER over 34" tall"??
I believe that carrying on to allow the BOTW change to take effect will be damaging to the AMHA. I DON'T believe that is something that ANY of us, who are longtime members and supporters, want....
Margo
