Showing ASPC and AMHR

[Boinky]

but wondering how many generations do the Minis have to be from Shetlands before they are no longer Shetlands, but Miniatures?

That's just it..they ARE already mini's by definition which is PURELY 38". They are also mini in that they already meet the very vague "miniature SOP". Because or lack of definate SOP we do not need to breed away over generations to be called what we are away from some other breed. Unless the SOP is changed then by defininition ANYTHING under 38" and registered as such is a miniature PERIOD.

 

[~Lisa~]

Rene I do agree with what you are saying to a large extent. I think if actual honest measuring was taking place you would see a good amount of those ASPC/R horses not showing in the mini shows anymore.

We can continue to sweep it under the rug but the reality is there are horses over 38 inches showing in our shows and our National shows and the number of them is just increasing.

It is a height registry no doubt and any breed or combanation of breeds that meet the size requirements were allowed in I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with horses that are OBVIOUSLY over the 38 inch mark sometimes by 1-2 inches showing in the miniature arena and winning.

It is easy to say protest but again the reality of the politics and backlash is always present

 

[kaykay]

Rene I do agree with what you are saying to a large extent. I think if actual honest measuring was taking place you would see a good amount of those ASPC/R horses not showing in the mini shows anymore.
We can continue to sweep it under the rug but the reality is there are horses over 38 inches showing in our shows and our National shows and the number of them is just increasing.

It is a height registry no doubt and any breed or combanation of breeds that meet the size requirements were allowed in I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with horses that are OBVIOUSLY over the 38 inch mark sometimes by 1-2 inches showing in the miniature arena and winning.

It is easy to say protest but again the reality of the politics and backlash is always present

--------------------

I so agree with every word lisa! But its not just the aspc/amhr I have seen a lot of amhr only that are obviously over or horses in the 34 and under that are obviously over.

 

[LaVern]

Ah, the measuring thing. I wasn't really referring to that, but just in general which way things will go. But now that you mentioned it. I think we can just about kiss that one goodbye.

I had a glimmer of hope when some of the honest AMHA Big boys came over. Thinking that --these guys are not going to take it and would be more likely to protest-- But the funny thing was, some of them came in with even bigger horses.

 

[~Lisa~]

I had a glimmer of hope when some of the honest AMHA Big boys came over. Thinking that --these guys are not going to take it and would be more likely to protest-- But the funny thing was, some of them came in with even bigger horses.

I agree the when in Rome thing has really taken over and it seems to be spiraling out of control .

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Personally I really don't care. I think making people decide if they want to show in AMHR or ASPC may very well hurt the ASPC portion, but if you can show both divisions and have the money that will bring in more profit for the show and more horses and popularity for ASPC. Now here is the only problem I see with it. We already having people switch over to AMHR/ASPC these days, they see those types of horses winning so they think they must have one, if we allowed it to where you can go in the same divisions at the same show I think there defintelly won't be that much of a demand for a AMHR horse, but I can see it being good for your AMHR/ASPC breeders. Like you said to each its own tho.

Yes the shetland ponies are a breed, you can't hardship ponies in anymore. Miniatures you can hardship so therefor not officially a breed, seriously I don't see it happening. I know I would like to see it but there would defintelly need to be some changes. So therefor miniatures are a height registry. So honestly do we need a standard of perfection when it comes to these minis? They just need to be under 38" at the last hair of the mane and your in. Why the need for a SOP? You breed what you like, you do what you want to do with them, end of story.

So the original question should we just throw away this rule? I think your AMHR only people wont paticulary like it, but sure the AMHR/ASPC breeders I can see the money now, and there are alot of breeders out there now that do the AMHR/ASPC.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

"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".

 

[Crabtree Farm]

"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".

 

[Crabtree Farm]

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.

But Rowdy was a hackney pony. He was a hardshipped into a Miniature Registry. And there are plenty of Rowdy get and grand get out there.

 

[Minimor]

Rowdy was a Hackney pony? I haven't heard that before...mainly Shetland breeding, yes, but Hackney? Which of the horses in his pedigree were registered Hackneys? Are you saying he had Hackney papers?

That's just it..they ARE already mini's by definition which is PURELY 38". They are also mini in that they already meet the very vague "miniature SOP". Because or lack of definate SOP we do not need to breed away over generations to be called what we are away from some other breed. Unless the SOP is changed then by defininition ANYTHING under 38" and registered as such is a miniature PERIOD.

I'm not sure if you're just too hung up on the standard of perfection, or if you are being deliberately obtuse... I see nothing wrong with the standard as it is...just do away with the under 38" clause and that will take care of that issue! Why do you not want the Miniature to be its own "real" breed? Close the registry, let all horses that have two registered Miniature parents keep their registered Miniature Horse status regardless of size, and we will be that much closer to a real breed. Miniatures do not all have to look the same--they don't have to have a very precise standard which describes one type of horse and one type only....look at the QHs....the Morgans....one breed, different types...they aren't all clones of each other. Miniatures can be the same.

 

[Boinky]

I'm not sure if you're just too hung up on the standard of perfection, or if you are being deliberately obtuse... I see nothing wrong with the standard as it is...just do away with the under 38" clause and that will take care of that issue! Why do you not want the Miniature to be its own "real" breed? Close the registry, let all horses that have two registered Miniature parents keep their registered Miniature Horse status regardless of size, and we will be that much closer to a real breed. Miniatures do not all have to look the same--they don't have to have a very precise standard which describes one type of horse and one type only....look at the QHs....the Morgans....one breed, different types...they aren't all clones of each other. Miniatures can be the same.

I'm "only hung up on the SOP" because it was being used as an excuse earlier on to try to say others are not breeding for the true miniature... the true miniature that several people think are true miniatures DO NOT EXIST their "type" IS a miniature but according tot he SOP it is not THE only type of mini out there . I beg to differ but every breed i've ever delt with had ONE TYPE that makes that breed special.. they may have slight variations (due to showing or whatever such as more refined in certain area's etc) but they still had ONE TRUE TYPE....and most of those breeds you could fairly easily distiquish them by their "Type". the ONLY consistent 'TYPE' mini's have in common is that they are under 38". I'm not against it becoming a breed at all HOWEVER i am against it being dictated what "type" of mini breed for....which by becoming a breed i can forsee becoming an issue! It's very short sighted to think otherwise. If i choose to have a "shetland type" or a "hackney type" or a "quarter horse type" mini there is NOTHING wrong with that.. it's like me saying other types of mini's are "wrong" because it's not what I like. If becoming a "breed" means that half our mini population doesn't fit the breed standard it IS going to be a problem.. trust me!! It's very obtuse to think that making this into a breed is going to be an easy or simple solution OR that the people that want the breed one way are even going to get it that way... they may end up getting exactly what they don't want.

I'm really not sure how making it a breed would change anything either. There are still hundreds of pure shetlands that can be crossed onto each other to continue the mini shetland lines even if they are registered as miniatures......

 

[willowoodstables]

I dont understand why people cannot understand that AMHR and AMHA are height registries. ASPC is a breed registry! If you go back Shetlands were NEVER supposed to have to hardship AMHR. That was slipped in one year.

BINGO..you can have a mini "arab type" mini "Thelwell type" or a Shetland "hackney type" or Shetland "Thelwell type" The difference, about a hundred years of breed specific bloodlines that can be traced back to Scotland. For the Shetlands that is. Minis?? Well it could have been a short POA crossed with a Shetland and again..there is no set rule as it is about HEIGHT. For instance, the Hackney PONY and Hackney HORSE share the same stud book. Is it about height?? Nope..it is about 100 plus years of a strain of trotting fancy horse/pony. Minis?? They come in any shade, colour, size (under 38" NOT measured like any other breed known to mankind), type and style. Why, 'cause we like em. SO, if I end up with a midget Hackney pony that measures 38" AT THE LAST HAIR ON HIS LONG LONG NECK...guess what..he's gonna be "hardshipped" and show as a mini. So, what the heck is the difference with showing at the same show the same animal that the ASPC/AMHR has granted REGISTRATION papers to?? None IMHO..it is a total farce that people try to get a rule changed or amended or complain about it. Well holy hanna, your own registry allowed them to be registered!!!! One based maybe on DNA, the other on how tall he is.

Donning flame suit on..just start breeding a BREED not short ponies that measure. Most Hackneys are BAY, with the odd Chestnut. Most Standardbreds are BAY, with the odd chestnut or grey. That is a breed with fairly common traits..as in colour! I know of ONE 100% DNA'd Hackney that is a pinto (which is actually due to the predominate sabino gene) and I have yet to see a pinto Standardbred. What commonality (sp) does the mini share? Under 38". And again, every type, style, color..what ever your little heart desires.

Let em all show together in cross entered classes, you register them all together!

Kim

 

[willowoodstables]

I'm not sure if you're just too hung up on the standard of perfection, or if you are being deliberately obtuse... I see nothing wrong with the standard as it is...just do away with the under 38" clause and that will take care of that issue! Why do you not want the Miniature to be its own "real" breed? Close the registry, let all horses that have two registered Miniature parents keep their registered Miniature Horse status regardless of size, and we will be that much closer to a real breed. Miniatures do not all have to look the same--they don't have to have a very precise standard which describes one type of horse and one type only....look at the QHs....the Morgans....one breed, different types...they aren't all clones of each other. Miniatures can be the same.

I'm "only hung up on the SOP" because it was being used as an excuse earlier on to try to say others are not breeding for the true miniature... the true miniature that several people think are true miniatures DO NOT EXIST their "type" IS a miniature but according tot he SOP it is not THE only type of mini out there . I beg to differ but every breed i've ever delt with had ONE TYPE that makes that breed special.. they may have slight variations (due to showing or whatever such as more refined in certain area's etc) but they still had ONE TRUE TYPE....and most of those breeds you could fairly easily distiquish them by their "Type". the ONLY consistent 'TYPE' mini's have in common is that they are under 38". I'm not against it becoming a breed at all HOWEVER i am against it being dictated what "type" of mini breed for....which by becoming a breed i can forsee becoming an issue! It's very short sighted to think otherwise. If i choose to have a "shetland type" or a "hackney type" or a "quarter horse type" mini there is NOTHING wrong with that.. it's like me saying other types of mini's are "wrong" because it's not what I like. If becoming a "breed" means that half our mini population doesn't fit the breed standard it IS going to be a problem.. trust me!! It's very obtuse to think that making this into a breed is going to be an easy or simple solution OR that the people that want the breed one way are even going to get it that way... they may end up getting exactly what they don't want.

I'm really not sure how making it a breed would change anything either. There are still hundreds of pure shetlands that can be crossed onto each other to continue the mini shetland lines even if they are registered as miniatures......

Thanks Boinky..haw many of you can tell you are looking at a blooded Arab? Blooded Quarter horse? Standardbred? Why can you? Years and years of selective breeding, based on a type or standard that was created many many many years ago, and yes you get the oddball (ie color) or fads (honking big muscled on tiny feet Quarter horses) BUT they are bred by people who breed that breed (ie I breed Hackneys) and the standard look, type motion is STAMPED into offspring due to the original bloodstock as per the standard. Look back at your Journals ..nothing is consistant.. I post a picture of a Hackney from 1920..

Here is the current Wolrd Champion 2008..not a lot of difference..and that is only 89 years of selective breeding for type to the standard.

Here is a picture of a Hackney from 2008

 

[willowoodstables]

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.

Yes but is not an honest 38". My pony is an honest 50", at the wither. Period. My hunter is an honest 16'2 at the wither. The eventer horse is an honest 17.0 hands at the wither. The pacer I jog at the track is an hones 15.0 at the wither. My former show mare (Saddlebred) has an hones 16.2 at the wither.

Yes breed for your particular tastes. If my hackney measures an hones 47" at the wither and 38" at the last hair, he is a mini..REALLY????

Kim

 

[sdmini]

Hey I'm all for closing the books, but not holding my breath for that to happen.

I would even consider a rule like Paint that requires one parent to be registered with the association while the other can be of an approved outcross, in this case ASPC or AMHA, a step in the right direction.

However I don't feel it's fair to continually poke with the "height breed" stick when I would warrant a very large portion of "straight miniature" breeders would relish the chance to close the books.

 

[willowoodstables]

"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".

Ok, yes and no to the above. In my totally honest opinion, I have a "park action" type breed. There is no way I could even attempt to get my leggy, necky pretty nice (IMHO) mini to trot like my hackney. I could use all the "devices" known to mankind, and he will never do it au natual, and easy. Minis should not be shown park..it is a shame to see..they are not built to do it. Holy moly, can you ever imagine a mini trotting like a big time Park Morgan, Three Gaited Saddlebred or Hackney and look good?? NOPE never unless my midget hackney gets hardshipped into the AMHR. That's it folks..breed a miniature, if you want a park type, get a short Morgan, Saddlbred or Hackney to show in a viceroy.

Examples of Park horses..

Morgan

Saddlebred

Hackney

In all honesty, do you think minis belong in park classes?? Nope

Kim

 

[My-Lil-Pony]

I think things are fine just the way they are. If you do not think a mini can truly show in a class then you can choose to not participate yourself.

 

[MiLo Minis]

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.

Yes but is not an honest 38". My pony is an honest 50", at the wither. Period. My hunter is an honest 16'2 at the wither. The eventer horse is an honest 17.0 hands at the wither. The pacer I jog at the track is an hones 15.0 at the wither. My former show mare (Saddlebred) has an hones 16.2 at the wither.

Yes breed for your particular tastes. If my hackney measures an hones 47" at the wither and 38" at the last hair, he is a mini..REALLY????

Kim

Thats the rule as it stands right at the moment. Perhaps that is another good reason why that rule should be changed!

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Hey I'm all for closing the books, but not holding my breath for that to happen.

I would even consider a rule like Paint that requires one parent to be registered with the association while the other can be of an approved outcross, in this case ASPC or AMHA, a step in the right direction.
However I don't feel it's fair to continually poke with the "height breed" stick when I would warrant a very large portion of "straight miniature" breeders would relish the chance to close the books.

I'm all for closing the books as well. AMHA is doing it, why can't we? But of course the ASPC/AMHR breeders will get upset and will have to leave it open to ASPC horses.

 

[minih]

However I don't feel it's fair to continually poke with the "height breed" stick when I would warrant a very large portion of "straight miniature" breeders would relish the chance to close the books.

Whenever you explain miniatures to anyone new how do you explain them? They are little horses that measure in under 34 or 38 depending on the registry you are talking about. Shetlands are a breed, they do not lose papers if they grow over.

What do you consider a "straight miniature" breeder? Your registries are made up of a wide extent of people not just a certain type. Rules and regs are made for all members not a certain select few meeting the "straight miniature" criteria. My feelings are different from yours, does not make me or you right, but the majority.