Shetland Influence
- Thread starter LaVern
- Start date
Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:
Russ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 1,592
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks Susanne and Kay for responding. I appreciate it alot.
Kay, your right...there is no set type.....and that in itself can be a challenge and a blessing in a class.
But it does clearify what a judge has to consider in the ring when judging a halter class. And if I were a judge and came from a hackney background or a welsh or mini or a shetland....I probably would be partial to the look that I liked. It's just human nature, we all like what our beliefs were founded upon.
As a competitor, I have to remember that all and make educated decisions in showing...who, what and where....and then ask myself....why did I do that?
It's just smart to do your homework. See, I'm learning already
I have nothing against mini's, shetlands or hackneys at all and certaily love to compete against them. My intention is to learn and be more succesful in the ring and breeding herd. But to be clear, when I refer to a hackney type look competing....I'm not referring to the moderns small enough to compete in with the B's. I'm actually talking about the breedings that used a small hackney stud somewhere in the lineage to cross in with the mini mares.
I learned alot from this thread and the other one. I thank you all
Kay, your right...there is no set type.....and that in itself can be a challenge and a blessing in a class.
But it does clearify what a judge has to consider in the ring when judging a halter class. And if I were a judge and came from a hackney background or a welsh or mini or a shetland....I probably would be partial to the look that I liked. It's just human nature, we all like what our beliefs were founded upon.
As a competitor, I have to remember that all and make educated decisions in showing...who, what and where....and then ask myself....why did I do that?
I have nothing against mini's, shetlands or hackneys at all and certaily love to compete against them. My intention is to learn and be more succesful in the ring and breeding herd. But to be clear, when I refer to a hackney type look competing....I'm not referring to the moderns small enough to compete in with the B's. I'm actually talking about the breedings that used a small hackney stud somewhere in the lineage to cross in with the mini mares.
I learned alot from this thread and the other one. I thank you all
JMS Miniatures
Well-Known Member
I agree with Stormy I think people that breed for miniature horses (not miniature shetlands), just don't want to see the "breed" go. Thats why I think people really express their opinions on this.
As far as the legs are concerned, I do see quite a bit of problems with stifles when it comes to these minis, heck I had a GMB grandson that had stifle issues. But I also see some of these mini shetlands that have bad camped out back legs that aren't good either. I mean these shetlands are suppose to be stretched out as it is so its easy to hide it, and plus have a better topline. Not saying all these shetlands are like this and not saying all minis don't have this but just giving an example of a negative thing I see when it comes to the miniature shetlands. I think each and everyone of us should pay real close attention to the legs of these horses, I see this as more of a bigger problem that these horses have, doesn't matter how good of a head or neck your horse has if it doesn't have the legs.
I believe the only shoes you are allowed to have in AMHR is the chariot and the draft classes, the only time you should have a fake tail if needed is in park. I don't know about AMHA.
As far as the legs are concerned, I do see quite a bit of problems with stifles when it comes to these minis, heck I had a GMB grandson that had stifle issues. But I also see some of these mini shetlands that have bad camped out back legs that aren't good either. I mean these shetlands are suppose to be stretched out as it is so its easy to hide it, and plus have a better topline. Not saying all these shetlands are like this and not saying all minis don't have this but just giving an example of a negative thing I see when it comes to the miniature shetlands. I think each and everyone of us should pay real close attention to the legs of these horses, I see this as more of a bigger problem that these horses have, doesn't matter how good of a head or neck your horse has if it doesn't have the legs.
I believe the only shoes you are allowed to have in AMHR is the chariot and the draft classes, the only time you should have a fake tail if needed is in park. I don't know about AMHA.
Little Indian Acres
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2008
- Messages
- 176
- Reaction score
- 0
You sound like you prefer my kind of horse.
Yep Russ that is exactly it!But it does clearify what a judge has to consider in the ring when judging a halter class. And if I were a judge and came from a hackney background or a welsh or mini or a shetland....I probably would be partial to the look that I liked. It's just human nature, we all like what our beliefs were founded upon. As a competitor, I have to remember that all and make educated decisions in showing...who, what and where....and then ask myself....why did I do that?It's just smart to do your homework. See, I'm learning already
JMS Miniatures
Well-Known Member
You sound like you prefer my kind of horse.I like essentially a sport horse in miniature.
I prefer a horse that can actually do something. I tell people I want to breed miniature performance horses lol. My goal is to produce winning versatility horses which of course includes halter.
MiLo Minis
Well-Known Member
I am not sure if the above statement is true or not. Here is a quote made by an AMHR/ASPC sanctioned judge recently:
"What I saw this week was horses that were thin not necessarily refined but bone thin with pencil thin upright necks winning in the ring. Unfortunately sometimes good comformation (sp) is just not enough in todays world. I have seen a lot of lessor (sp) quality horses winning classes this year because of long necks and tiny heads/ears."
That sounds to me like a pony type is being described, not a good quality pony type but pony none the less. If it is going to be a case of 'if it's pony it must be better' no matter what it is put together like then I take exception to that. Sounds to me like good quality doesn't seem to matter as much as having pony traits does. Maybe fewer of them should be winning.....
Last edited by a moderator:
Judges are taught to judge on form to function. But we all know that bias does play a part. If you want a better breed specification to typify the miniature horse, people are going to have to get together and write a proposal and submit it to Convention. If you want to close the books completely to outside influences (which has been mentioned here that shetlands are the origination) then that is a proposal too.
To each his own here IMHO. Breeding for good quality, confirmation, soundness, character and temperment - isn't that the goal here, either reg?
To each his own here IMHO. Breeding for good quality, confirmation, soundness, character and temperment - isn't that the goal here, either reg?
Becky
Well-Known Member
When I bought my first miniature horse in 1989, I purchased that horse because I wanted something really miniature. Something that looked way smaller than the Arabian horses that I had.
Having gone through 20 years now of miniature horse ownership, I've come to see the 'breed' develop and come a long ways from where it started. As someone who breeds for horses that are 34" and under, I've seen refinement, balance and quality grow by leaps and bounds. While I readily admit and am proud of the fact that these horses have Shetland pony in their backgrounds, where I'm going with my breeding program does not include adding current Shetland blood.
The reason for me to not add Shetlands to my miniature breeding program is just that. I want to keep it miniature . By adding Shetland to my herd, it only increases the liklihood of having foals that mature taller than 34". There are certainly registered Shetlands under 34" in height, however, their close up background is likely over 34". Over 34" horses in the first few generations of a pedigree greatly increase the chances of having foals maturing over 34"even if sire and dam are under 34".
So for me, my goal is to continue to breed the finest under 34" horses that I can, utilizing pedigrees of as many under 34" horses that I can.
Having gone through 20 years now of miniature horse ownership, I've come to see the 'breed' develop and come a long ways from where it started. As someone who breeds for horses that are 34" and under, I've seen refinement, balance and quality grow by leaps and bounds. While I readily admit and am proud of the fact that these horses have Shetland pony in their backgrounds, where I'm going with my breeding program does not include adding current Shetland blood.
The reason for me to not add Shetlands to my miniature breeding program is just that. I want to keep it miniature . By adding Shetland to my herd, it only increases the liklihood of having foals that mature taller than 34". There are certainly registered Shetlands under 34" in height, however, their close up background is likely over 34". Over 34" horses in the first few generations of a pedigree greatly increase the chances of having foals maturing over 34"even if sire and dam are under 34".
So for me, my goal is to continue to breed the finest under 34" horses that I can, utilizing pedigrees of as many under 34" horses that I can.
Last edited by a moderator:
Allure Ranch
Well-Known Member
LaVern
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,299
- Reaction score
- 34
I feel like this a lot more than entertaining. It is informative and makes me stop about things. What happens in the AMHA affects the AMHR and visa versa. Although some AMHA people might not think so.
I think that we are at a cross roads and some of us are going to have to make some decisions and because of the economy they are going to be some tough ones.
We have so many IF's
First AMHA is going to be closing-We think- Do we hardship in before it does? Or just figure that they will change their minds in a few years when they need more money.
I think that AMHR will follow suit shortly if they do. Making single AMHA's worthless if they go over and pretty worthless even if they don't. And I think that there are still a lot of them not doubled. Unless that would force them to create an over division.. And then I would really be mad if I didn't hardship them AMHA.
Shoot I put this on the wrong thread. Oh well.
I think that we are at a cross roads and some of us are going to have to make some decisions and because of the economy they are going to be some tough ones.
We have so many IF's
First AMHA is going to be closing-We think- Do we hardship in before it does? Or just figure that they will change their minds in a few years when they need more money.
I think that AMHR will follow suit shortly if they do. Making single AMHA's worthless if they go over and pretty worthless even if they don't. And I think that there are still a lot of them not doubled. Unless that would force them to create an over division.. And then I would really be mad if I didn't hardship them AMHA.
Shoot I put this on the wrong thread. Oh well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay- on emore thing since I have read all the posts now
Judging the minaiture horse- since i am an AMHR/ASPC- Modern and Classic and Show Pony carded judge- this is how I do it....
AMHR- under and over division- there is no set type for these divisions. Correct conformaiton, proporiton and balance and movement are taken into consideration. However- there is no scale to weigh these characterisitcs and judge by type or ability. So -yes- it is up to what the judge wants to pick. It still should be sound and correct.
ASPC-there is a very distinct type (bone structure, physical balance) tempermant, and movment explained in the rule book for each division of the shetland. This I follow very closely whenjudging- however soundness is one of my biggest concerns. If I have a horse that borders on type but the horse that truly fits type is not sound or conformed correctly- I will go with the one that borders on type- only if it is more correct and meets the other criteria. Many of the classes have a percentage weight for each charcterisitcs- this should make it much more difficult for judges to play politics or personal preference when judging.
I think the AMHR B division is coming to a big cross roads and I have had this discussion with many directors in AMHR/ASPC. In My opinion- there needs to either be a set type put on the division or they need to create an ASPC miniature division at Congress. It is very difficult for the over 34" miniature to compete with the under 38" shetland. I see it mostly in respects to head proportion to body, neck set and shoulder angles and leg length to body proportion along with movement in the bigger divisions. In these classes I am looking for the most correct conformed and sound horse with the best balance and proportion - I try to leave type or breed out of it. It really isn't too difficult to do at the local shows, but at the National Show I see it being a much bigger dilema for judges to decide. I know if I had that job title it would make things a whole lot easier on the me to pick out of 80 yearling fillies which ones fits type best.
Just my opinions here. I am glad to see the topic come up on here as I think it is something to discuss more.
Robin-LKF
Judging the minaiture horse- since i am an AMHR/ASPC- Modern and Classic and Show Pony carded judge- this is how I do it....
AMHR- under and over division- there is no set type for these divisions. Correct conformaiton, proporiton and balance and movement are taken into consideration. However- there is no scale to weigh these characterisitcs and judge by type or ability. So -yes- it is up to what the judge wants to pick. It still should be sound and correct.
ASPC-there is a very distinct type (bone structure, physical balance) tempermant, and movment explained in the rule book for each division of the shetland. This I follow very closely whenjudging- however soundness is one of my biggest concerns. If I have a horse that borders on type but the horse that truly fits type is not sound or conformed correctly- I will go with the one that borders on type- only if it is more correct and meets the other criteria. Many of the classes have a percentage weight for each charcterisitcs- this should make it much more difficult for judges to play politics or personal preference when judging.
I think the AMHR B division is coming to a big cross roads and I have had this discussion with many directors in AMHR/ASPC. In My opinion- there needs to either be a set type put on the division or they need to create an ASPC miniature division at Congress. It is very difficult for the over 34" miniature to compete with the under 38" shetland. I see it mostly in respects to head proportion to body, neck set and shoulder angles and leg length to body proportion along with movement in the bigger divisions. In these classes I am looking for the most correct conformed and sound horse with the best balance and proportion - I try to leave type or breed out of it. It really isn't too difficult to do at the local shows, but at the National Show I see it being a much bigger dilema for judges to decide. I know if I had that job title it would make things a whole lot easier on the me to pick out of 80 yearling fillies which ones fits type best.
Just my opinions here. I am glad to see the topic come up on here as I think it is something to discuss more.
Robin-LKF
LaVern
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,299
- Reaction score
- 34
Oh no Robin, They found a very very old miniature skeleton out west in the Bad Lands of North Dakota that will prove once and for all that is where miniatures descended from. He seems to have had a good bite, although perhaps a little heavy boned. National Geographic is doing a series on it.
The little guy, and we think he was a stallion was probably 33 inches tall and 11 or 12 years old when he came to his death. The are always digging for dinosaurs so perhaps they will find more of them. We have named him Shorty.
Don't you think that beats the Royalty story? But really I think that all horses came from something that somewhat resembled my first miniatures. Yikes.
Seriously, it is wonderful to hear from a new young judge that has more time and experience in this industry than a lot of us old timers. I am thinking about your ideas for the over division and I think I like what I hear. Ms LaVern
The little guy, and we think he was a stallion was probably 33 inches tall and 11 or 12 years old when he came to his death. The are always digging for dinosaurs so perhaps they will find more of them. We have named him Shorty.
Don't you think that beats the Royalty story? But really I think that all horses came from something that somewhat resembled my first miniatures. Yikes.
Seriously, it is wonderful to hear from a new young judge that has more time and experience in this industry than a lot of us old timers. I am thinking about your ideas for the over division and I think I like what I hear. Ms LaVern
Last edited by a moderator:
ckmini
Well-Known Member
MiLo Minis
Well-Known Member
ok so what if your idea (saying this to the general audience) of 'type' is not what ASPC/AMHR were to decidesthe type should be.. which i would guess about 90% of mini's will not fit one specific type.. I think your going to see a real problem with our industry. people either will change to that specific type (which may not be at all what everyone saying they want "real" mini's to be) or they will fold financially (or mentally lol) and get out of the industry completely. i don't know about you but i'd probably be very upset if someone came along and all of a sudden after years of setting my program to what i liked with our already vague standards and said "hey your horses don't fit the type and never will by our new standards..too bad so sad". I could be wrong but i think it could do a lot of damage to set a specific type.. perhaps setting several different types would work though. This is something people should NOT be too hasty in deciding on and give MUCH fore thought to. just because "YOU" want it one way does not mean that is how the AMHR staff or membership will decide to make it and considering the very large membership not everyone is bound to agree either.....
just some things to think on....
TomEHawk
Well-Known Member
Robin is dead on in everything she has stated. As an ASPC/ASPR/AMHR judge I do prefer the modern looking miniatures, but a good horse is a good horse. I will not place a high trotting miniature that has a bad head, bad neck, bad top &/or bottom line and a bad hind over a quarter horse type mini that has a nice top line &/or bottom line, nice neck, nice head, straight legs, and a nice head just because he/she can't trot as high as the other modern type mini. And the same goes the other way around. We, as judges, can't get hung up on one thing on a horse. We have to look at the overall picture, no matter what type. At least, this is the way I feel.
Keri
Well-Known Member
I've only been into showing for 4 years. Did a bit of research here and there. As far as shetland influence, miniatures were created from shetlands bred down. So where does the shetland influence end?
The shetland has evolved to become very family friendly, refined horses. I know I rode a potty, onery shetland mare when I was a kid and hated her! But my shetlands now are nothing compared to what she was (and shetlands got a bad rap for being pigheaded). I just started showing shetlands last year. I show the big boys (43" on up). Loved the show ring environment with them. I think working the rail and the entire way they are shown showcases a horse a lot better than a mini. I definately got bored in the mini halter ring. But that's just me. I still have an A mini I show. But he's not as fun to me as showing the ponies. And in training, I found my shetlands more willing to learn and please. Most of my minis have always had the attitude of leave me alone and we'll be good.
My moderns are definately more hotter, but very controllable. I wouldn't hand them over to my 2 year old (nor would I hand over most of the minis I've owned) only due to height differences. But he'll start leadline on my classic next year and will start to show them later on when he gets a bit taller. But overall, I love my ponies.
But like most said, its a preference. The mini I show is an appy. Comformationally correct, but due to spots on his butt, some judges will overlook him. Same with showing the AMHR/ASPC minis with different influences. The judge has an idea of what they like and either your horse has it or not. You pay for their opinion, but you don't always have to like it.
Those are just my two cents.
But like most said, its a preference. The mini I show is an appy. Comformationally correct, but due to spots on his butt, some judges will overlook him. Same with showing the AMHR/ASPC minis with different influences. The judge has an idea of what they like and either your horse has it or not. You pay for their opinion, but you don't always have to like it.
