Some FACTS about the AMHA Measuring Petition

[maestoso]

I have copied and pasted the standard of perfection directly from the AMHA website.

Standard of Perfection

General Impression: A small, sound, well-balanced horse, possessing the correct conformation characteristics required of most breeds, Refinement and femininity in the mare. Boldness and masculinity in the stallion - the general impression should be one of symmetry, strength, agility and alertness. Since the breed objective is the smallest possible perfect horse, preference in judging shall be given the smaller horse, other characteristics being approximately equal.

Size: Must measure not more than 34 inches at the withers, at the last hairs of the mane.

Head: In proportion to length of neck and body. Broad forehead with large prominent eyes set wide apart. Comparatively short distance between eyes and muzzle. Profile straight or slightly concave below the eyes. Large nostrils. Clean, refined. Even bite.

Ears: Medium in size. Pointed. Carried alertly with tips curving slightly inward.

Throat-Latch: Clean and well defined allowing ample flexion at the poll.

Neck: Flexible, lengthy, in proportion to body and type and blending smoothly into the withers.

Shoulder: Long, sloping and well angulated, allowing a free-swinging stride and alert head/neck carriage. Well-muscled forearm.

Body: Well muscled with ample bone and substance. Balanced and well proportioned. Short back and loins in relation to length of underline. Smooth and generally level top-line. Deep girth and flank. Trim barrel.

Hindquarters: Long, well-muscled hip, thigh and gaskin. Highest point of croup to be same height as withers, Tail set neither excessively high or low, but smoothly rounding off rump.

Legs: Set straight and parallel when viewed from front or back. Straight, true and squarely set, when viewed from the side with hooves pointing directly ahead. Pasterns sloping about 45 degrees and blending smoothly, with no change of angle from the hooves to the ground. Hooves to be round and compact. Trimmed as short as practicable for an unshod horse. Smooth, fluid gait in motion.

Color: Any color or marking pattern, and any eye color, is equally acceptable. The hair should be lustrous and silky.

So my question is this....... This is a VERY small change to our standard of perfection. While many people may not like this, how is this going to HURT the AMHA. I would be interested in specific examples, that don't include the image of the association. I want to know the REAL negative effects that it is going to have.....

 

[Buckskin gal]

If I knew who the people were, I wouldn't have asked. Thank you for telling me what you think I know. I do understand this is not an army. After what I have read and heard I have decided that even though I am for keeping the mesuring as it was I won't be signing the petition because I have my doubts about certain things. Another thing that bothers me is giving out our membership numbers in a public place...who knows what can happen with all the identity stealing, in this day and age. Doesn't matter, for me, if it is social security no. or a membership no. there is always the chance of someone using it wrongfully. Please try to understand that this is just my thoughts and opinions and I hope you see no need to down play or exaggerate them. Thank you, Mary

Mona, This is one time we will just have to agree to disagree because it does matter to me who is behind something like this. It isn't that I don't believe in petitions for change because I do. I thik it is a way to make a difference but it is my right to have as much information as possible when making choices or decisions....that is the way I am and it has served me well for many years. I feel I have a right to question and often feel the more questions asked and the more answers that are given help tremendously in living. I fully understand that everyone who signs the petition is behind what it states but that doesn't tell me who the group of people was that iniated it. If someone wants to remain anonomous that is fine but I felt there was nothing wrtong in asking about the reasons for it. Thanks, Mary



We are not an army.... you know who most of us are.. we are only a handful of concerned AMHA members.

 

[Buckskin gal]

Matt, Thank you for posting the Standard of Perfection. Would you also post the new way of measuring so people can compare the difference...I don't see it as much of a change but others may think it is a big change. Mary

I have copied and pasted the standard of perfection directly from the AMHA website.

Standard of Perfection

General Impression: A small, sound, well-balanced horse, possessing the correct conformation characteristics required of most breeds, Refinement and femininity in the mare. Boldness and masculinity in the stallion - the general impression should be one of symmetry, strength, agility and alertness. Since the breed objective is the smallest possible perfect horse, preference in judging shall be given the smaller horse, other characteristics being approximately equal.

Size: Must measure not more than 34 inches at the withers, at the last hairs of the mane.

Head: In proportion to length of neck and body. Broad forehead with large prominent eyes set wide apart. Comparatively short distance between eyes and muzzle. Profile straight or slightly concave below the eyes. Large nostrils. Clean, refined. Even bite.

Ears: Medium in size. Pointed. Carried alertly with tips curving slightly inward.

Throat-Latch: Clean and well defined allowing ample flexion at the poll.

Neck: Flexible, lengthy, in proportion to body and type and blending smoothly into the withers.

Shoulder: Long, sloping and well angulated, allowing a free-swinging stride and alert head/neck carriage. Well-muscled forearm.

Body: Well muscled with ample bone and substance. Balanced and well proportioned. Short back and loins in relation to length of underline. Smooth and generally level top-line. Deep girth and flank. Trim barrel.

Hindquarters: Long, well-muscled hip, thigh and gaskin. Highest point of croup to be same height as withers, Tail set neither excessively high or low, but smoothly rounding off rump.

Legs: Set straight and parallel when viewed from front or back. Straight, true and squarely set, when viewed from the side with hooves pointing directly ahead. Pasterns sloping about 45 degrees and blending smoothly, with no change of angle from the hooves to the ground. Hooves to be round and compact. Trimmed as short as practicable for an unshod horse. Smooth, fluid gait in motion.

Color: Any color or marking pattern, and any eye color, is equally acceptable. The hair should be lustrous and silky.

So my question is this....... This is a VERY small change to our standard of perfection. While many people may not like this, how is this going to HURT the AMHA. I would be interested in specific examples, that don't include the image of the association. I want to know the REAL negative effects that it is going to have.....

 

[McBunz]

Well Mary you hit the nail directly on the head.. Where exactly is this magical measuring spot.. Nobody seems

to know for sure.. So you line your horses up to be measured at the show and the handler or owner is telling

the person measuring.. No that is the wrong spot.. next one the same thing.. It is a dip between bones on the spine... well the whole spine has dips... take your pick... OH! What about the person measuring for registration at home.. Which dip is he or she going to pick.. I have even heard the lowest spot on the back.

You know colors are wrong on lots of AMHA reg. horses now how about the future height. Breeding for size

from the background of any horse will be useless.

 

[Charlotte]

I just think it is so very unfortunate that when the first word come out about the measuring change there were immediate comments here on LB alluding to a conspiracy of some sort and behind the scenes machinations to get this bylaw change passed for the personal gain of some...

I must admit I didn't read all of the posts. I don't have the time. But what I did read jumped out at me as insinuations of wrongdoing by those attending the Annual Meeting.

Then the next thing I heard was a group forming to take steps to fight the change and those persons and steps were to be kept secret so 'they' couldn't block us'. Or something such as that.

Now we have those who don't know the reasons and thoughts and facts behind the petition at cross purposes with the authors and supporters. What good is this doing anyone?

What has happened to 'working together for the good of all'? This is sad and even moreso because all of this animosity is unnecessary and counter productive.

Charlotte

 

[McBunz]

Well I don't think anyone was trying to be dishonest... I just think this new measure is worse than the last.

Our protest group can not help what other people post.. it is everyones right here to post their opinion..

even within our group..

 

[Buckskin gal]

And this brings me right back to my question as to how does anyone know the horses WILL measure taller if they don't even understand where they are to be measured. How can anyone vote on something they say they don't understand [where the measuring is really to take place] ? Like I said before, I would prefer it be left as it was but I don't expect everyone to feel the same way as I do and I do think questions need to be answered and understood to the fullest. As for breeding from the background of a horse....I believe there are a lot of mistakes and deliberate things on those pedigrees that are already not factual...not just colors.

Size has always been somethin that was cheated on by some people. " have even heard the lowest spot on the back" This is the reason more questions need to be asked and more information given before stating things as a fact. Is it not all about where the the real spot is rather than exaggerating where it might be like the middle of the back?

JMHO Much of what I say is said to have people consider facts rather than just assuming. JMHO Mary

Well Mary you hit the nail directly on the head.. Where exactly is this magical measuring spot.. Nobody seems

to know for sure.. So you line your horses up to be measured at the show and the handler or owner is telling

the person measuring.. No that is the wrong spot.. next one the same thing.. It is a dip between bones on the spine... well the whole spine has dips... take your pick... OH! What about the person measuring for registration at home.. Which dip is he or she going to pick.. I have even heard the lowest spot on the back.

You know colors are wrong on lots of AMHA reg. horses now how about the future height. Breeding for size

from the background of any horse will be useless.

 

[Mona]

Size has always been somethin that was cheated on by some people. " have even heard the lowest spot on the back" This is the reason more questions need to be asked and more information given before stating things as a fact. Is it not all about where the the real spot is rather than exaggerating where it might be like the middle of the back? JMHO Much of what I say is said to have people consider facts rather than just assuming. JMHO Mary

Yes Mary EXACTLY! And we have been ASKING the BOD and Executive Committee, and NO ONE, NOT even ONE of them has an answer to exactly where this spot is!!

 

[McBunz]

You have to remember also anything we propose still has to jump threw all the hoops and hurtles.

Just because we are trying for change doesn't mean it is going to happen. I don't see this as a positive

thing. Change is needed.. and all we can do is try our best to see that it is at least taken into consideration.

Measuring to the last hair of the mane can be seen also to the top of the withers.. You can not see

this magic notch..

 

[maestoso]

The only thing that is going to change on the Standard of Perfection would be this:

Instead of reading....

Size: Must measure not more than 34 inches at the withers, at the last hairs of the mane.

It would read....

Size: Must measure not more than 34 inches at the base of the withers.

Im still looking for the many ways that it is going to hurt the association and the breed. People are so intense about this I expected a million posts with a million reasons.....

 

[Buckskin gal]

[SIZE=18pt]Size: Must measure not more than 34 inches at the base of the withers.[/SIZE] seems like if the top of the withers can be found then the base should be there also. Certainly not the middle of the back if we know anything about horse sturcture. I think this is stated because there was cheating with the mane hairs...is it going to fix the cheating? I think not, nor is measuring at the top of the withers going to stop cheaters. JMHO Mary

 

[user 488]

Deleted my post as I misunderstood another post. Sorry.

 

[Buckskin gal]

Carol said:! "THIS IS A GREAT REASON NOT TO BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU HEAR." Yep and I would take that to mean either side of an issue. We do need to be informed but it is very hard to be informed if we can't believe anything we hear. There will always be opposing views and I have learned to be educated as well as I can on something of interest to me. I do wish that there was a forum with each association to discuss issues with other members of that association. There are people I do trust and believe and I will until they prove they are not worthy of my trust. It does make me cringe to hear some of the off the wall things,said, on this forum....so I do take a lot that is said, with a grain of salt.

Mary

 

[Charley]

Just something that I have been thinking about....changing the way of measuring, changes the heights of each of my horses. So in 2009 all of my horses (and everyone else's) that are currently permanent will have the wrong heights on their papers....and this is not due to any of them growing or shrinking. OH! And all the heights of the horses on our pedigrees will not be calculated the current measuring way. All this discord caused by some people cheating.

I just think it is so very unfortunate that when the first word come out about the measuring change there were immediate comments here on LB alluding to a conspiracy of some sort and behind the scenes machinations to get this bylaw change passed for the personal gain of some...
I must admit I didn't read all of the posts. I don't have the time. But what I did read jumped out at me as insinuations of wrongdoing by those attending the Annual Meeting.

Then the next thing I heard was a group forming to take steps to fight the change and those persons and steps were to be kept secret so 'they' couldn't block us'. Or something such as that.

Now we have those who don't know the reasons and thoughts and facts behind the petition at cross purposes with the authors and supporters. What good is this doing anyone?

What has happened to 'working together for the good of all'? This is sad and even moreso because all of this animosity is unnecessary and counter productive.

Charlotte

Charlotte you are so wise. So even if you agree or disagree please try to understand why people on both sides are upset. Don't just dismiss it!

 

[bingo]

I don't think it will hurt AMHA as much as it is insulting. For years we have heard that the over 34 inch horse was not acceptable for AMHA not a true miniature horse and now this opens the door for several over 34 inch horses in fact 35 inch horses to now be legally AMHA. What about all those who turned in the papers they had doing what was right?

What about the statement AMHA is the true miniature horse registry when in reality now it is allowing larger horses in and just making sure they measure smaller.

Of course it will bring in more revenue to the registry but I also think many with horses that will now measure in will just happily pass the chance by.

What will happen when now 36 inch horses are trying to measure in with the new system and can get in how much complaining will those who voted for this new way do?

Only those for this proposal seems to say they have horses that have very little difference when the rest of us have had over 1 inch difference in measuring.

 

[Teresa]

Here is a drawing of a horse with identifying muscle groups. Guide your mouse over the numbers and it will identify the muscle. Horse Muscles

 

[Buckskin gal]

Excellent information Teresa. As stated before, we do need to understand the structure of the horse to know what we are talking about. As this explains there is a top and a base to the withers and the back starts at the base of the withers, so for anyone to think they can measure on the back is not correct.

25) Back; The back extends from the base of the withers to where the last rib is attached.

26) Withers; The withers is the prominent ridge where the neck and the back join. At the withers, powerful muscles of the neck and shoulders attach to the elongated spines of the second to sixth thoracic vertebrae. The height of a horse is measured vertically from the withers to the ground, because the withers is the horse's highest constant point

I think this is very clear and really hope it helps others to understand what is what. Mary

Here is a drawing of a horse with identifying muscle groups. Guide your mouse over the numbers and it will identify the muscle. Horse Muscles

 

[Buckskin gal]

Mary Lou, Maybe all the people who have measured and found their horses to be taller with measuring at the base of the withers can give you a better idea of how they found the base of the withers. I am still puzzled at how so many people are saying their horses are now measuring taller but others are saying they can't find the base of the withers. Some are and some aren't, apparantly. I think some are looking for a notch but I don't see on the standard change anything about a notch. Just gotta keep are sense of humor over all this and before long it will all be a thing of the past. I personally am not too worried because I don't think the measuring place will actually be changed. Good luck to all of you in getting what youwant. Mary

I am really trying to stay out of this... but.. Bingo, thank you for your comment.. I am one of those stupid people that turned in a horse's AMHA papers last year because it was OVER 34" at the last hair of the mane.. I really thought it was the right thing to do.. With the new rule for measuring at base of withers, she may well measure in.. HOWEVER.. I am still trying to find this so-called base of the withers.. or the "notch".. As stated earlier, there are MANY notches!!!

I even went so far is to STUDY where the base of the withers is EXACTLY...

Here is just TWO meanings that I found.. so far..

Withers.. They are made up by the dorsal spinal processes of the first 5 to 9 thoracic vertebrae (every horse has 18 thoracic vertebrae)

Withers.. The withers is the prominent ridge where the neck and the back join. At the withers, powerful muscles of the neck and shoulders attach to the elongated spines of the second to sixth thoracic vertebrae.

Which one is right?? And how are we suppose to find it? If I can't.. who can? Is AMHA going to have x-ray machines at the shows to prove where the bottom of the withers are when they measure in?? Just so the "cheaters" can not cheat anymore? And by the way, which thoracic vertebrae number will AMHA bless as the "bottom of the withers".. #6? or #8? How about #9??

Lets get back to the horse that I own that was OVER last year BUT will not be OVER next year… Are they going to give my papers back? I want to know..

Is AMHA going to change all my re-measured horses and their offspring registration papers to the new and improved 2009 way of measuring? if not, why not?

Is AMHA going to change EVERYONE's registration papers to read their new height that will change in 2009? So we will have to re-measure all our horses to the new height.. If not, why not?

You see.. I have not got answers to these solid meat & potatoes questions because AMHA executives and the ones that voted it in does not know yet their selves!!! They vote in a new measurement way of doing things (at the bottom withers, which could also mean "middle of back" to some people) without thinking of how to take care of IMPORTANT answers that effect yours & MY horses..

The ONLY answer I got so far is… sort of goes like this.... "Oh well.. we got time to work out the answers before the new rule takes in effect…"

Pardon me? Should that not be thought of before they PASS such a rule?? I thought things have to be well thought out FIRST before rules are passed?

Did they have horses at the AMHA meeting to show people where this NEW Measure spot is? So they are informed before they voted on the "bottom of withers"??

A very respected handler and trainer went to a measurement seminar just recently and even she had a hard time finding this so called "notch".. As far as I am concerned, there sure will be a lot of guessing.. At least the last hair on the mane could be visually seen!!

For this reason, after much thought... I think I will sign my name as supporting the petition to put a hold on the new measure rule.. As I want to know answers to my questions NOW!!… I truly I feel these questions (and I am sure there are lots more) should of all been worked out BEFORE the new measure at the base of withers was VOTED ON.. not worked out on a later date..

Please remember.. this is JMHO

 

[bingo]

Mary to be clear my horses are not measuring taller in fact quite the opposite. My smallest horses have had the smallest amount of change however I now have horses who are without a doubt 35 inches with the old measurment and are now easily under 34 inches.

I do think measuring at the base of the withers does more to discredit AMHA then not.

For a registry to say that they are breeding for and allow only 34 inch and under horses and clearly allow larger one's into the breeding pool just makes no sense.

 

[McBunz]

Good for you Marylou.. We have said the same things countless times and people still ask the same questions

over and over again..

Mary and Teresa , I understand you are all for the change to the measure... Now I would like to hear

your reasons for favoring this change.. and not the bull about correcting the cheating at shows either.

We all know that this is not going to change a darn thing with the cheating measures. It will only make

it easier for people to argue that the measure was take at the wrong spot..

It is because you are afraid to make waves? Do you have horses stretching the limit that you want

AMHA Registered.. There must be some reason that this rule is so appealing to some of you...

I am wondering if someone was not right when they suggested that it was pushed threw to get it out

of the way because some would just no let it go... so the rest of those at the meeting could get down

to business of running the Club... I too would like to the minutes of the meeting..