Reasons for Rule Change

[Bluerocket]

Excellent explanation. Thank you for taking the time to post this.

Judith Jay

 

[capall beag]

We will lose what makes us unique and different if we measure at 36 inches. You can call it whatever you want, a horse is a horse, but a AMHA horse is under 34 inches. If big horse people think we are crazy, they must have always thought that, whats different?

I think this new rule change shows that an AMHA horse is NOT 34 inches or under. It is infact just measured wrong to make it appear that way.

How odd to claim to be a height registry but base this whole claim on a false height

Seems like an obvious way to encourage cheating, since the registry is cheating with their own rules.

I think big horse people are right!! The attempt to claim over 34" horses are NOT miniature BUT measured the wrong way they miraculously are

This is definately illogical and backward thinking OH!

Maybe eating humble pie and admitting that a horse over 34" is indeed a miniature is just too hard to do.

There are so many horses that have lost their A paperwork because their owners were honest. Will they now get them back???

Or will the dishonest people, who lied about their horses height to remain in A, be rewarded for their dishonesty by now owning true AMHA horses, just measured differently

Certainly an interesting topic

 

[bingo]

We will lose what makes us unique and different if we measure at 36 inches. You can call it whatever you want, a horse is a horse, but a AMHA horse is under 34 inches. Toni Reece

Reece Family Miniatures

I guess I simply don't understand why those for this rule seem to be missing the point. You have done just that. AMHA is no longer unique or different. This new rule will allow 35 and 36 inch horses legally into AMHA just because you call them 34 inches and choose to measure in the LOWEST PLACE ON THE BACK doesn't make the horses 34 inches. They will still be in some cases well over 34 inches. Therefore in the eyes of the registry itself not truly breeding worthy.

How this rule can pass and yet you all can still deny you will be letting *gasp* oversize horses into your registry and will legally allow them to show and breed is beyond me. Just call a spade a spade say it like it is. You all voted to allow larger horses into AMHA including Shetland's and choose to continue to fool those that don't know better by claiming they are 34 inches or less.

As far as the overseas market well this couldn't have had better timing for AMHR. Once you are telling them your horses are over and still equally as valuable then that sure leaves the door wide open for the 34-38 inch market. Not only those hidden and cloaked under the new AMHA measuring rule but all those wonderful AMHR horses as well so perhaps we should be thanking AMHA for that!

 

[ClickMini]

Oh, Jennifer...now you have opened up a can of worms! LOL

P.S.: Gaia will also easily make the new standard...I will definitely take advantage of that hardship potential to get her in before the 2013 deadline. As it is today, she is pretty much right on the line at the last mane hair. AMHR/ASPC registered. I have another mare that this new standard will also help...she is a mini bred, small background, but right on the line at the last mane hair. Currently R registered only. I will for sure hardship her if I feel my "non-refundable fee" is not dependant on whether the wind is blowing the correct direction. Both of these mares are going to be helped by even a 1/4" difference. Look at a ruler...we are not talking about much here!

P.P.S.: Honestly, I could care less where we measure, as long as it doesn't make the upper limit LESS than what it is now. The biggest growth area in both registries is in the performance arena. It is simply not fair to the horse to use "the smallest possible horse" standard for driving. I personally will NEVER support a change to make the upper limit 34" at the (top of) wither. I am totally fine with measuring 34" at the last mane hair, the bottom of the wither, or 36" at the top of the wither. That being said, if it was fairly voted in by the membership I will accept whatever the vote brings. And I am not threatening to walk away from the registry. I hope the membership makes wise decisions, and accept that at times decisions may not go along with my belief system. That DID happen at this meeting, when it was voted to close hardship. My feelings are, that is short-sighted. But whatever will be, will be.

 

[Sunny]

We will lose what makes us unique and different if we measure at 36 inches. You can call it whatever you want, a horse is a horse, but a AMHA horse is under 34 inches. If big horse people think we are crazy, they must have always thought that, whats different?

I think this new rule change shows that an AMHA horse is NOT 34 inches or under. It is infact just measured wrong to make it appear that way.

How odd to claim to be a height registry but base this whole claim on a false height

Seems like an obvious way to encourage cheating, since the registry is cheating with their own rules.

I think big horse people are right!! The attempt to claim over 34" horses are NOT miniature BUT measured the wrong way they miraculously are

This is definately illogical and backward thinking OH!

Maybe eating humble pie and admitting that a horse over 34" is indeed a miniature is just too hard to do.

There are so many horses that have lost their A paperwork because their owners were honest. Will they now get them back???

Or will the dishonest people, who lied about their horses height to remain in A, be rewarded for their dishonesty by now owning true AMHA horses, just measured differently

ABSOLUTELY!!

The "last hair of the mane" has been an odd enough way of measuring, in my opinion, but now THIS?! It's ridiculous, IMO.

As for some ASPC animals measuring "34" or under", I can hardly wait to see what the AMHA will do when those tall genes start making their appearance! Maybe then they'll start measuring at the elbows!

 

[Nathan Luszcz]

This rule was taken through the proper channels...... ........It took two thirds of the members voting and present and over two thirds voted yes. Measuring at the top of the withers was also voted on and it did not pass, only a few memebers voted yes, the majority voted no.

Toni Reece

Reece Family Miniatures

Question, and many will hate me for it:

Who were the people at the meeting? Was this held at the world show? Were the people voting on the amendment using it as a method to make their over-tall horses standard again? Or did the population voting truely represent a valid cross section of the membership?

What I see in my head due to my own overactive imagination when I read this thread is an elite group of people who go to all the shows with all their ponies and are skirting the edge of the measuring. These are the people who don't measure their horses square. When this smaller group of people was presented the option of making their horses legal they jumped at it, putting their own herds and their own awards ahead of the association and their fellow breeders/owners/showers. That's just what I picture when I read these threads. True? I sure hope not! But..... what if it is?

 

[zacharyfarms]

If it's good enough for our government looks like it would be good enough for AMHA. It would have been nice to vote without having to attend.

1. What is absentee voting?

Absentee voting is a voting method that involves voting on a day earlier than the actual election day.

2. two forms of absentee voting:

a. Absentee in person, which is better known as early voting, and

b. Absentee by mail, which is commonly called by-mail voting.

2. Who may apply to vote absentee?

To vote as an early voter, a registered voter may vote without giving a reason during the established early voting period.

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

We will lose what makes us unique and different if we measure at 36 inches. You can call it whatever you want, a horse is a horse, but a AMHA horse is under 34 inches. If big horse people think we are crazy, they must have always thought that, whats different?

That has to be the MOST oxymoronic statement I have ever heard. In the "real" world, those horses being measured at the back ARE 36".

*sigh*

Lucy

 

[Warpony]

We will lose what makes us unique and different if we measure at 36 inches. You can call it whatever you want, a horse is a horse, but a AMHA horse is under 34 inches. If big horse people think we are crazy, they must have always thought that, whats different?

That has to be the MOST oxymoronic statement I have ever heard. In the "real" world, those horses being measured at the back ARE 36".

*sigh*

Lucy

I guess that doesn't matter as long as we can say they are 34" or under on paper.

Even if it takes using a non-standard measuring method to make that possible.

 

[BLACKWATER FARMS]

Thanks Toni for giving us some of the reasoning behind the new measurement change--

I understand that people are not happy about this--but please don't shoot the messenger!

I too am glad to know where this came from, but if you will notice the original post, Toni is not only the messenger, but the perpetrator.

? not sure why this comment was even said--and what it has to do with the rest of the content of the post-- OH!

Linda

 

[lyn_j]

Im with Sweet OPAL 100% I have some darn nice shetland/minis that are easily going to measure into amha with these measurements..... but, oh , wait.....they are going to close the books so they cant get in OH!

I would also like to know about the papers that i send back on two 35 inch mares who Im sure would now measure under 34 as they are driving mares with hight withers.Whew! go to Germany and the world of minis goes to pot!

Lyn

 

[Songcatcher]

Thanks Toni for giving us some of the reasoning behind the new measurement change--

I understand that people are not happy about this--but please don't shoot the messenger!

I too am glad to know where this came from, but if you will notice the original post, Toni is not only the messenger, but the perpetrator.

? not sure why this comment was even said--and what it has to do with the rest of the content of the post-- OH!

Linda

I was taking it that you were referring to Toni as only being a messenger. Possibly I misunderstood who you were referring to. I am glad to know how this situation came about, but according to the original post, Toni was not only relaying the message but was the designer of the plan that so many of us are so strongly opposed to.

 

[HGFarm]

Thank you for posting, however I feel that moving the measuring spot is just 'tweaking the stats' to make the horse measure in where you want it.

Nobody can tell me that a good percentage of the folks that show AMHA dye the manes or sew in hair!! If this is what is found, yank those folks from the show grounds and they forfeit all money paid!

I also would like to know what will happen to all the horses who have had papers cancelled because they previously measured in at 34.25 or 34.5" and had their papers cancelled??!! Those horses were processed correctly by the rules by honest owners.

This rule change is only to cover up for those who chose NOT to play by the rules set, and allow them to keep the papers on horses that SHOULD have been cancelled! So by cheating, they just waited long enough to make sure the rules got changed in their favor, while the rest of the folks out there were cancelling papers. The cheaters still win in the end.

Just my opinion...........

 

[BLACKWATER FARMS]

Thanks Toni for giving us some of the reasoning behind the new measurement change--

I understand that people are not happy about this--but please don't shoot the messenger!

I too am glad to know where this came from, but if you will notice the original post, Toni is not only the messenger, but the perpetrator.

? not sure why this comment was even said--and what it has to do with the rest of the content of the post-- OH!

Linda

I was taking it that you were referring to Toni as only being a messenger. Possibly I misunderstood who you were referring to. I am glad to know how this situation came about, but according to the original post, Toni was not only relaying the message but was the designer of the plan that so many of us are so strongly opposed to.

The point of MY post was that perhaps if people aren't happy with the way things are they should do something to change it, and starting with how things a voted into being for the AMHA. The members of the club should be able to change this rule if this many people are this upset about it. Sometimes it takes something like this to get the membership charged up enough to take back direction of the club to where the majority of its members feel it should go.

lkf

 

[minimomNC]

Just to clarify one thing, when asked how many were online watching the meeting, Heather told us it was 94 the first day, I didn't get the number for the second day but there wasn't any more online than at the meeting, so why didn't everyone take advantage of this option since it was offered? And if you want to change something, put in the rule/bylaw change and go vote on it. Surely if everyone is complaining this much about anything, they can take the time to go vote on it. And I for one can honestly say that my mind has been changed about issues when I have heard both sides. If I hadn't been at the meeting to hear both sides, I wouldn't have changed my mind.

I am not rich, its a pretty big cash strain to go to the meetings evey year. I also have to take time off of work to go. But I care enough to make it happen, not just when its in my back yard but where ever the meeting is, I will if at all possible be there. I was in Las Vegas and good Lord willing, I will be in San Diego next year. I am on two committees that I care alot about, I am no saint, I don't agree with everyone, but it does get old when the ones that do go to the meeting and do work to make changes, any changes, get constantly bashed by those that chose to stay home and not do anything. And yes it is a choice you make. This meeting is held every year in Feb and is on the AMHA website pretty early in the year. I shared a room with someone from TX to help cut the cost of the motel.

Bottom line is, if you want a vote in AMHA then get the majority to the meeting and vote to change it. Thats the only way it will happen.

As for the measuring, its a done deal. It will go into effect on Jan 1, 2009. If you don't like it, go through the channels and get it changed because complaining about it for 20 pages on LB isn't going to change a thing.

 

[wpsellwood]

Just to clarify one thing, when asked how many were online watching the meeting, Heather told us it was 94 the first day, I didn't get the number for the second day but there wasn't any more online than at the meeting, so why didn't everyone take advantage of this option since it was offered? And if you want to change something, put in the rule/bylaw change and go vote on it. Surely if everyone is complaining this much about anything, they can take the time to go vote on it. And I for one can honestly say that my mind has been changed about issues when I have heard both sides. If I hadn't been at the meeting to hear both sides, I wouldn't have changed my mind.
I am not rich, its a pretty big cash strain to go to the meetings evey year. I also have to take time off of work to go. But I care enough to make it happen, not just when its in my back yard but where ever the meeting is, I will if at all possible be there. I was in Las Vegas and good Lord willing, I will be in San Diego next year. I am on two committees that I care alot about, I am no saint, I don't agree with everyone, but it does get old when the ones that do go to the meeting and do work to make changes, any changes, get constantly bashed by those that chose to stay home and not do anything. And yes it is a choice you make. This meeting is held every year in Feb and is on the AMHA website pretty early in the year. I shared a room with someone from TX to help cut the cost of the motel.

Bottom line is, if you want a vote in AMHA then get the majority to the meeting and vote to change it. Thats the only way it will happen. As for the measuring, its a done deal. It will go into effect on Jan 1, 2009. If you don't like it, go through the channels and get it changed because complaining about it for 20 pages on LB isn't going to change a thing.

woohoo I have to totally agree

 

[lvponies]

Well.....if we had online or mail in voting capabilities, we could let our voices be heard through our voting selections. It's not that we don't care what choices a select few make for the entire organization. We do care very much especially when we don't agree with the choices that were made. We are frustrated because our voices weren't heard. With members spread out all over the country, you would think AMHA would care enough to offer online or mail in voting so they get a better picture of what their membership thinks about issues not just those who are able to attend the meetings. You can vote online on all kinds of issues, all kinds of surveys. It can't be that hard. Maybe AMHA doesn't want to hear what the true majority of their membership think and only cares what the few able to attend the meetings think??