Showing ASPC and AMHR

[Jill]

for ME i would worry about showing a horse both mini and pony in one day because I think mentally that could be really confusing to the horse.
I think there are a lot of reasons pro and con. For me though we usually decide at the beginning of the year where to show our aspc/amhr horses to their best advantage

for ME i would worry about showing a horse both mini and pony in one day because I think mentally that could be really confusing to the horse.
I think there are a lot of reasons pro and con. For me though we usually decide at the beginning of the year where to show our aspc/amhr horses to their best advantage

I don't understand the logic there. There are many horses who compete in different disciplines and don't get confused. i.e. halter, driving, trail. If trained well they seem to know thier jobs.

I don't think an ASPC/AMHR horse should be able to cross over between the two types of classes at one show. Decide how your horse/pony will do best at a particular show and present him/her that way.

I have to agree with Sheryl's logic on this situation. Think of all the horses who do EVERYTHING at a show over the course of a weekend... halter, color, model, hunter, jumper, liberty, driving, costume, obstacle in hand, obstacle driving, and probably ETC... I don't think they get confused

It's well known that horses can anticipate what is expected of them / what to expect just by the type of halter you put on their head so what an easy way to clue a horse in

Plus horses who show AMHR and AMHA halter, ring procedure is also different there, yet there are no derailments due to befuddled horses

As someone who would one day like to add some AMHR/ASPC horses, I think it would be great if cross entering were again allowed. Can't think of a good reason not to allow it and can think of increased show revenue if it was again permitted

 

[minih]

For those that would like to show their AMHR/ASPC horse both ways at the same show, keep in mind that if that were allowed it might mean you would need to change the way you present your AMHR horse...since Shetlands cannot be balded, that means you couldn't show your Mini balded either...people would soon be squawking about that, and wanting to change the Shetland rule to match the AMHR rule (or lack thereof)...one thing tends to lead to another.

A very good point made by Minimor I had not thought of, but one that could be worked around. I do like to razor and love the look.

 

[midnight star stables]

I don't have a problem with the way the rule now stands. Maybe that is partly because I don't like to see someone take one horse into umpteen classes at a one day show. I've seen someone show one horse in 15-20 classes in one day. The horse shone the first few times he went into the ring, and by his last classes he was dull and tired, giving lacklustre performances...in some cases I believe the rule against cross entry is the most fair to the horse!

I was just thinking that

At the end of a long show I'M tired, now double that number of classes

And I've also been to AMHR only show that went until the next early morning!

I don't think I'd really mind either way, but I personally am leaning for no cross entering.

- - -

And as a side note, If you asked me what is my favorite breed - I'd answer Miniatures, without hesitation. If you asked me what is my favorite class - I'd answer halter, without a second thought. If you asked me what is my favorite colour - I'd always answer Black Frame Overo(LWO+). If you asked me what is my favorite driving class/style of movement - I'd answer Park Harness/ Modern movement, in an instant.

I want a National quality halter horse that is a Black Frame Overo(LWO+) with Modern movement that can show in Park Harness and yet honestly be under 38". Do I care if that horse is AMHA/AMHR or AMHR or ASPC/AMHR or even AMHA/AMHR/ASPC?? No! If it is all that I said, I'd be happy with it, no matter the registry. It would likely have to have some Modern shetland blood to get the action I want, but if it in under 38" I don't really mind.

I love having [SIZE=12pt]MY[/SIZE] DREAM HORSE in such a small package - And I am so thankful that AMHA, AMHR and ASPC offer my the chance to do just that!

To each their own - as long as they are under 38"

I should not post when I am tired! Too many spelling errors!

 

[Sunny]

Ruffian's post reminded me of what things were like back in 1995/96 when we were first learning about minis and purchasing our first one. The "propaganda" then was that minis are HORSES and they have NO pony blood. We heard it from so many people and other sources that we believed it and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. How many times did I get my back up when people asked me about my "ponies"?!?! (I know we've had zillions of threads on that over the years! LOL) A few years later when we started showing our minis in the States, I admit to being one of those who resented the AMHR registered Shetlands winning classes that were for Minis, but it didn't take long to realize that their winning ways had nothing to do with their papers, but rather their very correct conformation and movement!

I'm not suggesting that we should allow cross entering; I was just wondering why we don't. I hadn't even thought of some of the points that were raised here. As for balding, that's not a look I've ever liked (unless it was superbly done), so that's not an issue for me personally.

This has been an interesting discussion. I appreciate all the input!

 

[MiLo Minis]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is measuring. There would be such a mess at the measuring table. Some horses would need to be measured twice, once as a Shetland and again as a Mini. Others would only need one measurement. There would be the hoof measurement to be taken into consideration as well - would we allow some height difference due to hoof measurement for any Mini being cross entered? I see a whole new kettle of worms here and real headaches for the stewards. We all know how much time measuring takes now, especially in shows where both Shetland and Miniature classes are offered.

My personal feeling on it is: Breed what you love, decide where you want to show it and follow the rules of that division/registry. If you have an honest 38" and under horse, measured at the last hair of the mane, show in whichever division your horse is best suited for.

 

[~Lisa~]

Speaking from a show manager point of view I do think it would add work and confusion with a horse needing 2 numbers, having two measurments at the same show as well as perhaps rather then increasing revenue at shows I can see how it would drop it some as well.

If one person can go to one show and show all day long in both ASPC/R classes they might not go to another show the following week or month. Where if they are doing R at one show and ASPC another they may opt to go to both shows.

No way to tell for sure how it would effect the local shows revenue wise as in the long run I do think it would balance out to what it is now.

 

[LaVern]

While I can see how the mini Shetland people might like this, to me it would be just another way to cut the Straight B Miniature's status. Maybe, that is the way it will go. But when the Straight Miniature people have all gotten tired enough of being used to promote short Shetlands and some not so short Shetlands, we might just fade away and then we will see if the short Shetlands can put a show on by themselves any more than the tall Shetlands can.

 

[kaykay]

Im referring to halter classes as a mini and a pony are not shown the same way in halter.

 

[Jill]

Im referring to halter classes as a mini and a pony are not shown the same way in halter.

Yes, I know it's a different style, and I don't think it would need to confuse any horses

Horses can learn to do things in many different ways as long as they're trained and properly cued

Given all the elaborate things we've seen horses trained to do, I don't think two separate ways to set up for halter classes would be a very tall order to either the horse or the trainer

 

[gvpalominominis]

This is a very interesting thread to see people's different perspectives. I briefly read all the posts... so if this is duplication, I apologize.

There was a response that referenced that Shetlands that show as minis were felt to be mostly Classic and Foundation Shetlands... that may be, but IMO Shetlands that show as a miniature horse are ones that can measure in under 38"s.... regardless of the type they are. = )

For me, it would seem that of personal preference to show in either miniature classes or pony classes, as you don't have the choice and can't do both at the same show.

Another response, and with all due respect, that it would be confusing issuing 2 numbers and having to double measure horses that cross entered. Why would that be? There might be more entries - which any time there are more entries means extra work for the office people regardless, but they could still be handled on 2 separate entry forms - just as they are today. The only confusion may be for the owner/handler filling out all the separate forms.

As far as double measuring... that happens sometimes anyway.... say the horse can't measure in under 38"s or height for their age bracket... so if they are double registered they decide to have them measure as a Shetland instead...either then or later on in the show as an after thought. If you know at the time of initial measurement that you might cross enter (if it were allowed) you'd have them measured for both right then and the proper information entered.

Personally, I think we have to consider the down economy and the fact that many shows are NOT making money and being disbanded, so its imperative to have an open mind for maybe some drastic changes if not for just the simple fact of show survival and doing anything they can to obtained to increase entries for revenue.

I guess we'd have to rely on the Judges to be knowledgeable enough to be able to judge each "Breed" to its respective standard... just like we expect them to recognize the difference between a Classic and a Modern Shetland. So as much as I can understand why some would prefer the restiction, personally I'd rather be able to continue to have shows available and look into all options.

Just think, the trainers could even charge more for the extra work they might encounter... so it might increase their income too.. LOL

 

[Boinky]

gvpalominominis,

I have to say i agree with you on almost everything you said. I really don't see how it would get confusing for the office because as you said two seperate forms would be filled out as it's essentially two seperate shows. the only confusion may be for me as the competitor trying to keep track of numbers and classes, but If i didn't want that hassle..i wouldn't enter my horse as both.

Honestly I moved here from Maine to Kentucky late last summer. When i lived in maine our closest show (with shetlands) was a TEN HOUR drive. they only had like one maybe two a year that included shetlands. In such a situation it would have been nice to be able to show in both divisions and it may have also boosted the shetland class sizes as well which were usually extremely small.

I think you were responding to my post with this quote.

There was a response that referenced that Shetlands that show as minis were felt to be mostly Classic and Foundation Shetlands... that may be, but IMO Shetlands that show as a miniature horse are ones that can measure in under 38"s.... regardless of the type they are. = )

I only pointed out that MOST of them are indeed classics and foundation in that someone else made it sound like there were tons of moderns that were just out there whooping butt....which from what i've seen is not exactly the case. AND the same people were staying shetlands look so much different than minis..which i've found not to be true..especially with the classics and foundations. I think for the most part YES moderns do indeed look different (but i'm like you..i don't care as long as they measure in..it's just for argument sake). I PERSONALLY have absolutely no problem with moderns being part of our AMHR registry. I wish we could get hackneys in small enough sizes as well! I've never understood why we bother having a park harness class when mini's so apparently really are not cut out for that type of class truly. I was excited to see the moderns in the park class at nationals that we FINALLY had true park horses.

as for measuring..i do think it wouldn't take much if not anymore time to measure the horse twice at the same time...if you knew you were going to show your horse in both registries you just say "look i need a mini and a shetland measurement on this horse"... it does not take that long to measure. Even measuring the heel only takes a few seconds. What takes so long is the people that come up unprepaired and haven't filled out the paperwork etc before hand.

 

[disneyhorse]

I don't think it would be a big deal.

One thing a lot of mini people forget about... the Moderns are shown differently, and Moderns (not pleasures) are pretty much SUPPOSED to be shod particularly to be competitive so I don't really think you'll find a lot of THEM cross entering. You couldn't show your shod ASPC pony in AMHR classes, but your unshod ASPC pony would have to show against shod ones.

Also, action devices aren't as frowned upon like they are in AMHR, so that would be something to consider as well.

It sure would be a way for clubs to boost $$$ if you could show your pony Foundation/Classic ASPC as well as AMHR if it measured in. If I still had ASPC/AMHR horses I would love to go to shows like that.

Anything to promote quality small equine is a good thing!

Andrea

 

[gvpalominominis]

I only pointed out that MOST of them are indeed classics and foundation in that someone else made it sound like there were tons of moderns that were just out there whooping butt....which from what i've seen is not exactly the case. AND the same people were staying shetlands look so much different than minis..which i've found not to be true..especially with the classics and foundations. I think for the most part YES moderns do indeed look different (but i'm like you..i don't care as long as they measure in..it's just for argument sake). I PERSONALLY have absolutely no problem with moderns being part of our AMHR registry. I wish we could get hackneys in small enough sizes as well! I've never understood why we bother having a park harness class when mini's so apparently really are not cut out for that type of class truly. I was excited to see the moderns in the park class at nationals that we FINALLY had true park horses.

Yes, I can see what you were meaning..... probably something I missed in a post... I also would love to have and see that kind of fancy action in a mini. = ) I guess it just isn't always realized that unless its a freak of nature, you'll never get that kind of action out of breeding two country pleasure type mini horses together. Its gotta be bred in from somewhere.

I'm really enjoying my AMHR/ASPC horses, but never really intended on showing them as Shetlands. Although my first experience when my filly measured over for her age for an AMHR show... she took Reserve Grand as a Shetland. It was fun knowing she was competitive in both AMHR and Shetland classes. I may show her Shetland at a couple shows to help support the lower entries within the Shetland classes this year for the fun and experience of it. If possible... I'd also like to make it to Congress this year.

 

[ruffian]

"I've never understood why we bother having a park harness class when mini's so apparently really are not cut out for that type of class truly"

Then you've never seen Lutes' Komo BJ. 33" of Pure Park. As is his sire Lutes Komo Dandy. I agree there are tons of minis that are in the park class because folks have a viceroy. But there ARE miniatures - under 34" - that have park action.

I also agree that the modern Shetland in harness is awesome. So is a Morgan or Saddlebred. But that's not what I am looking for in a miniature horse.

"I wish we could get hackneys in small enough sizes"

IMO it's not all about action and performance! it's about attitude and conformation. Very few folks who know horses would mistake a hackney for a miniature, Again IMO in conformation, action, and in personality.

IMO We need to focus on if the miniature horse is ever going to be a breed. If it's ONLY a height breed, than why not register dwarfs? They are under 34 or 38". We need to stop changing what the standard of perfection is for the miniature just because an equine (classic, foundation, modern, hackney, welsh, Arabian, Appaloosa, Belgian) happens to measure under 34 or 38".

 

[Boinky]

that's just the problem..there is no one TYPE of miniature. The SOP itself is very open to interpretation ....leaves it to cover WELL CONFORMED horses under 34/38" and that's it.. it does NOT give any sort of defintion that our mini's have to be a Morgan, QH, Arabian, saddlebred, etc. ........and in it it says something about representing whichever breed you are representing in miniature. basically you could have ANY breed including the ones you just said as being represented. there's nothing wrong with that. I have no problem with the quiet mellow mini's either but I don't see why if someone wants a more saddlebredy/hackney type mini that is wrong just as it's not wrong for you to want and breed for what you want. If someone wants a QH mini or morgan mini, or arabian mini that is not wrong either. A certain "type" is now winning..and those that have not moved on to be that type are not is the reason for most of the squawking. Perhaps that isn't fair..... but unfortunatly life is not fair either. I can't change myself to be a skinny size 2 stunning super model apperance just to be able to win a beauty pagent but i'm able to do other productive things with my life and fulfill a purpose.

I'd love to see Morgany and other "types" of mini's winning..right now they are kind of stuck in the super refined araby type.... i have one that is a perfect miniature Morgan..... just not the way of the show ring right now. things might swing around in a few years but not right now. You need to just breed for what YOU like and what you want in a horse... at some point "fads" will change and your program might be just what everyone wants.... if not you still have the type of horse YOU like. It may not win in the show ring but the show ring is NOT the end all to a species....

 

[Sunny]

Getting back to the measuring thing for a minute.... what difference does it make if the steward is measuring one animal twice or two separate animals? Same difference, isn't it? If a double registered mini/Shetland were allowed to compete in both divisions at the same show, so what if it had to be measured both ways? It's the same as bringing a mini and a Shetland for their respective divisions. I'm sure all of our highly capable stewards could manage! Same goes for show management.

 

[Boinky]

I agree Judy... my thinking too... I just don't get the arguments....they truly don't make sense to me. Yes i have ASPC/AMHR horses but even when I didn't..i didn't gripe about them winning or that they should be in the registry.

It's like people that are against shetlands in mini's however they breed heavy buckeroo, rowdy,GMB and several others and those were all shetlands or at least half shetland (but i suspect a few were purebred just unable or unwilling to say so)....... Where would their program be without them? Where would the mini industry be without shetlands in general... it's foolish to keep lying about our heritage..it was a GREAT campaign slogan that miniature horses were not related to minis for a while but I think it's out of the closet and perhaps could be used to our advantage.

I"m truly not trying to step on any toes but i just love the people that claim they do not use shetlands in their ads yet their program is based on some or most of the above mentioned horses who were shetland.....do they not think we know that those famous horses were shetlands? It kind of makes them look very foolish in my eyes....and it seems to me would only work on the unsuspecting public who do not know bloodlines yet.

I can say my great granny wasn't Irish...but that doesn't make it so!

 

[Boinky]

IMO We need to focus on if the miniature horse is ever going to be a breed. If it's ONLY a height breed, than why not register dwarfs? They are under 34 or 38". We need to stop changing what the standard of perfection is for the miniature just because an equine (classic, foundation, modern, hackney, welsh, Arabian, Appaloosa, Belgian) happens to measure under 34 or 38".

Ok i needed to respond to this before i head to bed..i apparently missed it earlier. To me this isn't even nessarily about shetlands in the breed..... and it's not really nessarily aimed at you but at all the people i've been hearing this from....

to me it all boils down to that there are so many different TYPES how can one person say one specific type or several types are ruining the breed that doesn't have a type to begin with?

No one has changed the standard of perfection. It is so vague it could describe ANY horse or even a pony out there that has decent conformation PERIOD. it does not say anything about a "type". Most breeds have very indepth breed standards of perfection that gives the horses many very clear charachteristics that are normally either only found in that breed or are combined to make that breed unique from all others. neither AMHA or AMHR gives that kind of description. Infact, as i mentioned before, AMHA even has a little ditty in one of their things saying something to the effect of "to look like a miniature version of the breed you are presenting" (i'd be happy to find it for you if you want exact wording and where it is....). THAT means if you had a horse that looked like a Quarter horse you would present it as such and it should theoretically be judged fairly as such by the judge and should not be penalized for being a certain "type" over another "type". It should only be judged on the conformation and the conformation of that type compared to the other "types" presented. If you had an Arabian, Thoroughbred, Morgan, Saddlebred etc it would be judged as such and the class should theoretically be judged as an "open" type class where, say, each of those breeds competed together, and you'd find varying breeds entered in.

I believe this SOP was designed to specifically ALLOW for the MANY varieties of mini's. I have yet to see tons of "consistency" in the miniature breed other than for being SMALL (and in most cases "cute"). Certain lines are absolutely more consistent than others however i can look at the 1500 mini's at nationals and few of them are built the same or look the same or move the same (infact many mini's move just downright crappy which is a sure sign of conformational faults). In a BREED typically there is a consistency to that breed where they have the same "look/type". You can look at that breed and say "that is a XXX". I can go to an auction and say "oh look that is a arabian", "oh look at the morgan" "look at the saddlebred". "look thats definatly a walker" "that's a hackney". even poor examples of most breeds you can typically tell without even knowing anything about them. Mini's are not that way other than for their size alone (which is how it's supposed to be i guess).

It also, if i recall, does not say exactly what their temperament and personality etc is supposed to be....but i'll go read it again just incase.

Unless the SOP IS changed to specify EXACTLY what a "mini'" is supposed to look like, act like, move like.. that probably isn't likely to happen. You need to be very careful what you wish for as well, because IF the SOP is changed you may very well be disappointed in what it's changed to..... It may not cover at all what YOU personally like in a mini or your "type" of mini. would you stay in the breed if you didn't like a certain type and that was pretty much dictated that it was going to have to look like? for example say you like a mini that looks like an arabian.... well the SOP may change to making them all look like Morgans. Infact I bet a large portion of the Miniature horse owners would be outraged if they were told their mini no longer met the breed standards because they didn't have that "one type" that was in the breed standards. Would probably bring the mini industry to it's knee's considering the inconsistency and many different types to begin with. I can honestly say I would absolutely be upset if all the time, money and effort i put into my show and breeding stock went completely to waste because they changed the SOP and my mini(s) (i'm sure several of mine wouldn't fit since they are all very different) were no longer acceptable or at all desireable. As it stands now you can breed for your own personal preference and have a HUGE/WIDE variety of "types" to breed.

 

[Minimor]

It's like people that are against shetlands in mini's however they breed heavy buckeroo, rowdy,GMB and several others and those were all shetlands or at least half shetland (but i suspect a few were purebred just unable or unwilling to say so)....... Where would their program be without them? Where would the mini industry be without shetlands in general... it's foolish to keep lying about our heritage..

As someone said on an earlier thread...Lavern I think...of course those horses you name are of Shetland breeding. However, as those horses (GMB especially, Buckeroo is still close up in many pedigrees since he is still alive and breeding) get further back in the pedigrees, the present horses are a number of generations removed from the registered Shetlands. Many are not denying the Shetland heritage, but wondering how many generations do the Minis have to be from Shetlands before they are no longer Shetlands, but Miniatures?
Morgans are descended from (amongst other breeds) Narragansett pacers and Thoroughbreds. These breeds are part of their heritage, but it doesn't make the present day Morgan a Narragansett pacer or a Thoroughbred...and those breeds are no longer welcome in the Morgan registry. Some people see Shetlands and Minis in that same light. Shetlands made the Mini what it is, but after a time the Mini should be something separate from the Shetland. That's not denying the heritage, that is wanting the Mini to be its own breed. I can see their point, though I personally have nothing against the Shetlands being registered as Minis.

While I have no complaints about the ASPC/AMHR registered horses being shown as Minis, I do not wish to see them being able to show ASPC and AMHR in the same show. I think that would be bad for the AMHR minis...not because I think the AMHR Minis cannot compete against the ASPC Minis, but because the double registered ones could then show in so many more classes. It might cause more people to shun the AMHR horses in favor of the double registered ones, and that would be a hit for the AMHR market. I think the rule as it stands is a good one, and hope that it doesn't get changed any time soon.

 

[LaVern]

Minimor, You can say things so good and clearly. I too feel that the rule should stand. But I don't think it will. I see many more changes coming down the line, and while old timers like me with a lot of old baggage will grumble, things will change.

I can see a day, in the not so far future that there won't be a Congress and a Nationals, but rather a combination of the two.

My prediction is that, the next few years could be tough times as far as show numbers for the Shetlands, and maybe the Minis too. And the economics of these times will dictate that, we will have to do it. In order to put on a classy Congress they will have to join with us. And then after it is done it will become the norm.

I think, that with all the changes going on with AMHA and it's closing of the hardshipping and becoming a breed, some of us are going to have to take along hard look at which direction we are going to take.

Do we hardship while we can, into another association or try to compete in an arena where we with Straight Miniature horses are denoted as less by simply raising Straight Miniature Horses?

I hope I can be around in another twenty years to see how it all plays out. Renee LaBarre Reiten- LuckyHart Ranch