Saturday AMHA General Membership Meeting
- Thread starter JMS Miniatures
- Start date
Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:
Mona
Well-Known Member
Yes.
Katiean
Well-Known Member
'I think taking horses temp to perm at 3 yrs of age is a great idea and a great boost for the registry!
It will bring in needed funds for AMHA and will help keep horses' paperwork up to date. A win - win situation!
This is gonna kill me. I already had to bring 1 mare perm by the May show. Now I have to do this with 2 mares or I don't show. They should give us a few months to get this done and still let us show with the temp papers on a 4 year old.
JMS Miniatures
Well-Known Member
Well the way I see it is if people are going to lie if their horse goes over 34" after they turn 3 and not turn in their papers, what will stop them when they are 5? They will still do it. Until we can get these horses personally inspected and measured before they go pernament, like they do for hardshipping, there is no way to stop this.
I think so far from what I have seen the decisions have been good. Except I still wish they will call their "Lifetime membership" something else since it isn't necessarilly "Lifetime".
Did anyone hear the vote for the new driving class? Also were they voting again for reinsmanship, I thought I might have seen it in the World but could be wrong?
I think so far from what I have seen the decisions have been good. Except I still wish they will call their "Lifetime membership" something else since it isn't necessarilly "Lifetime".
Did anyone hear the vote for the new driving class? Also were they voting again for reinsmanship, I thought I might have seen it in the World but could be wrong?
ruffian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2002
- Messages
- 3,500
- Reaction score
- 17
[quote name=From what I understand it applies ONLY to the hardshipping aspect. Three year olds will now be eligible for AMHA hardshipping, as a direct result of the realization that the financial benefit from hardshipping will be missed.
They will be losing hardship money no matter when they enforce the rule. IMO it makes sense in that people can show and breed their horses 2 years earlier, which brings in additional $$ to AMHA.
And as mentioned before, those who are going to cheat, are going to cheat. Period.
In reality losing the ability to Hardship is going to hurt BOTH registries, because AMHR will not allow a horse that is not either AMHA or ASPC to be registered. But that's another thread.
They will be losing hardship money no matter when they enforce the rule. IMO it makes sense in that people can show and breed their horses 2 years earlier, which brings in additional $$ to AMHA.
And as mentioned before, those who are going to cheat, are going to cheat. Period.
In reality losing the ability to Hardship is going to hurt BOTH registries, because AMHR will not allow a horse that is not either AMHA or ASPC to be registered. But that's another thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well crap crap crap l thought l was all caught up on my registery work except for 2 temp to perms in June and any new foals to come and now that l'm pulling out all my files for birthdays l see that we need to bring 14 mares 2 stallions and 2 geldings from temp to perm this year because of the age change back to 3years old...
l swear it was changed years back because to many of the minis were still growing after the age of 3 but were thought to be done by age 5...
My two cents (which maybe a high estimate on what it's worth) the change in "mature" age from five to three had little to do with the "influx" of money from those horses being brought from temp to perm. As they stated they are going to give a grace period, i.e. no higher fee, for those that do not bring their three year olds permanent with in that period of, I believe, two years. Now I don't know about you but my $50-$100 is going to sit in my pocket where it will do me the most good in this economic crunch rather than pay a bill I don't have to for 2 years.
I do think there was a realization of shooting the golden goose on the closing of books and devised a way to assist plumping the coffers while they could. I, personally, have no issue with it so do not see a criticism where there is none. Saying that AMHR does it this way holds little water when one association doing it one way has, in the past, been a good reason for the other NOT to do it that way.
There will be hardshipped horses that measure honestly in at three that WILL NOT measure in at five, of that I will bet all my minis, three dogs, one tortoise, five fish and count 'em if you can number of cats, heck I'll even throw in the husband.
Again I have no real issue with it, just an observation.
I will say I loved the convention on-line. Like many I didn't get to watch the whole thing but what I was able to I really enjoyed. I found Frank Lupton's presentation extremely well done and matter of fact speaking refreshing. The whole convention reiterated the fact that the association is not one person but rather a consortium of individuals working for the "greater good". Now of 'course I will not always agree with some of the decisions made but will always appreciate those that do give of their time and money.
I do think there was a realization of shooting the golden goose on the closing of books and devised a way to assist plumping the coffers while they could. I, personally, have no issue with it so do not see a criticism where there is none. Saying that AMHR does it this way holds little water when one association doing it one way has, in the past, been a good reason for the other NOT to do it that way.
There will be hardshipped horses that measure honestly in at three that WILL NOT measure in at five, of that I will bet all my minis, three dogs, one tortoise, five fish and count 'em if you can number of cats, heck I'll even throw in the husband.
I will say I loved the convention on-line. Like many I didn't get to watch the whole thing but what I was able to I really enjoyed. I found Frank Lupton's presentation extremely well done and matter of fact speaking refreshing. The whole convention reiterated the fact that the association is not one person but rather a consortium of individuals working for the "greater good". Now of 'course I will not always agree with some of the decisions made but will always appreciate those that do give of their time and money.
Last edited by a moderator:
normajeanbaker
Well-Known Member
So am I understanding this right that I can hardship in my 4 year olds this year into AMHA??? I have read that you can get perm. papers at 3, so does this apply to hardshipping as well? A few people have asked this, but I cant find the answer to the hardshipping.
Thanks
Jen
Thanks
Jen
Becky
Well-Known Member
Yes, that is correct. You can hardship horses in to AMHA this year that are 3 years and older.
Relic, you don't have to take all of those horses perm this year. You still have unti they are 5 years old.
Last edited by a moderator:
SHANA
Well-Known Member
Yikes, I'll have to bring two permanent this year, my stallion Cross Country New Kid In Town and my mare, Unquestionably Cute Jypsy Rose SPH. Kid will be 4 and Jypsy will be 3 this year. Then I can hardship 2 mares if money permits, Risquefishers Winter Sky and FDC's Moongirl Shania. Sky should have been A/R but her dam outgrew her papers and was 36". Sky is only 30.75" as a 4 year old. Shania will be 3 this year and when I measured her she was 30.5".
Also pay to be a member since I haven't done that yet. I'll probably hardship my 2 girls later in the year once I sell some foals.
Would be nice if they reduced the hardship costs for mares and stallions, not just geldings. They would get a lot more horses hardshipped that way before the hardship closes in 2013.
My very first AMHA mini that I bought was 3 years old. When I picked her up the owner measured her and she was 33" on the nose. No big deal.
2 years later she had grown to 35" and I did not bring her perm. I had her papers revoked even though many people told me to go ahead and send them in LOL. To date she has never produced an over 34" foal even when bred to a 36" stallion.
Anyway yes they definitely keep growing after age 3
Kay
2 years later she had grown to 35" and I did not bring her perm. I had her papers revoked even though many people told me to go ahead and send them in LOL. To date she has never produced an over 34" foal even when bred to a 36" stallion.
Anyway yes they definitely keep growing after age 3
Kay
Irish Hills Farm
Irish Hills Farm
I think each horse is an individual and SOME MAY grow past 3 years of age.
My ASPC Stallion, Wall Street Illusions Jazz Singer, has been a hair under 34" since he was 2 years old, actually since January '08. I have periodically measured him since than and he hasn't grown at all. I really do not believe he will grow any more.
And Hula, the ASPC/AMHR mare that will also be hardshipped into AMHA this year, hasn't grown since she was a 2 year old either.
My ASPC Stallion, Wall Street Illusions Jazz Singer, has been a hair under 34" since he was 2 years old, actually since January '08. I have periodically measured him since than and he hasn't grown at all. I really do not believe he will grow any more.
And Hula, the ASPC/AMHR mare that will also be hardshipped into AMHA this year, hasn't grown since she was a 2 year old either.
Last edited by a moderator:
Minimor
Well-Known Member
Some do, many don't. There's not one on the place here that has grown after age 3; most seem to be done by the time they are 2 1/2, and a few have stopped at 18 months.
justagirl
Well-Known Member
I may have missed this ... but I'm wondering the same thing.
So this means I can hardship my AMHR 33 gelding this year ??
I also agree that doing permanent papers at age 3 is a great idea. Now when doing R papers, A papers can be done at the same time. I do have a problem with papers being taken from already registered horses. I feel that once they are registered, they STAY registered. Just because they happen to go over, why should they be eliminated from the registry? You can't show them. You can only use them for breeding stock. And who is to say their offspring would go over. I've seen where both parents are small and foals go over( nothing large in their background). Just like families. Small parents, tall kids. I also don't feel people are CHEATING by wanting to keep their horses A registered. Once registered, they should stay registered. Sorry, but this has always been a sore subject with me. dionne
Personallly, I do not like the idea of taking horses permanent at three. I especially do not like the idea of hardshipping horses at three years old. There ARE horses that don't finish growing until they are more than three years old, and I do not believe it is an 'insignificant' number. So, if a horse if one of those horses that is hardshipped at three, and then it continues to grow (or, for that matter, a 'regular' AMHA horse that was taken permanent at three.), will it's papers be pulled? Most likely not, as once people have gotten their 'hardship/permanent' measurement, they avoid a measuring again.
By hardshipping at three, we set up the situation where a 'honest' person can hardship in a horse at three, have it 'go over' as it matures, and then end up having to have its papers revoked. This should never happen, once a horse has it's 'mature' official height, it shouldn't be able to legitimately have grown taller.
Another aspect of these 'hardshipped' horses that DO continue to grow is that in the mean time, that horse was bred and produced foals, who now are 'full' AMHA papered animals, so we have done nothing positive for improving the genetics to produce under 34" horses, as these foals carry taller genes. Genes that would NOT have been introduced into the Associaition if the age to hardship had not been reduced.
Another side-effect of changing the age to take a horse permanent, is that is is going to give us two more years worth of foals that will be able to be hardshipped before the registry closes. The original date of 2013 was chosen so breeders would have time to have their foals born in 2008 (when the rule was made?) to be hardshipped. Now, it also allows foals of 2009 and 2010 to slip in under the deadline as well. I'm not saying this is a 'negative', but it does change the 'intent' of the closing date of the registry. If we stayed with the 'intent' of the deadline, then we would also have changed the date for closing the regstry to 2011.
By hardshipping at three, we set up the situation where a 'honest' person can hardship in a horse at three, have it 'go over' as it matures, and then end up having to have its papers revoked. This should never happen, once a horse has it's 'mature' official height, it shouldn't be able to legitimately have grown taller.
Another aspect of these 'hardshipped' horses that DO continue to grow is that in the mean time, that horse was bred and produced foals, who now are 'full' AMHA papered animals, so we have done nothing positive for improving the genetics to produce under 34" horses, as these foals carry taller genes. Genes that would NOT have been introduced into the Associaition if the age to hardship had not been reduced.
Another side-effect of changing the age to take a horse permanent, is that is is going to give us two more years worth of foals that will be able to be hardshipped before the registry closes. The original date of 2013 was chosen so breeders would have time to have their foals born in 2008 (when the rule was made?) to be hardshipped. Now, it also allows foals of 2009 and 2010 to slip in under the deadline as well. I'm not saying this is a 'negative', but it does change the 'intent' of the closing date of the registry. If we stayed with the 'intent' of the deadline, then we would also have changed the date for closing the regstry to 2011.
minimomNC
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 2,713
- Reaction score
- 66
If there are so many people who oppose taking a horse permanent at three, a lot of which are permanent at three in AMHR, they why have you not changed the age in AMHR to five? The horses will not grow different for the AMHA papers than they do for the AMHR papers so if you truly don't think a horse should be permanent at three, why haven't you even tried to change the age in AMHR? I have never heard anyone say a horse shouldn't be permanent at three before, until now that is, everyone has gone about the business with AMHR with no complaints, so why now since AMHA changed?
Ahh but you forget AMHR has a "B" registry and it's not so much I have in issue with it but rather the fact that there will be plenty of horses that will not mature under 34" that will be allowed to hardship in, not that they obtained the right to be AMHA registered by birth. Now whether a horse should or should not lose it AMHA papers if it goes oversize is a whole different kettle of fish and one I think needs to be addressed if AMHA is to truly become a breed.
midnight star stables
Well-Known Member
And if a B goes over? Do we turn a blind eye to that fact?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ha ha, no more so than before.
I am not talking about the horses that are AMHA registered by birth I'm talking about the ones that are HARDSHIPPED in, that have earned their right for registration papers solely on their measurement status. Do I believe some ASPC horses squeak in AMHR at 38" at three that do not remain so afterwards, absolutely. Again you are missing the fact that this is only an acknowledgement of this fact. I'm not starting a letter writing campaign to reverse the ruling nor is it even a criticism merely stating that there is now a loop hole to get horses that are NOT going to remain 34" into an association that does not allow (not that it isn't done) over 34" to currently remain AMHA papered.
By the way I have one that I fully believe at five will be over 34" but I bet at three will not.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
