Some FACTS about the AMHA Measuring Petition

[Buckskin gal]

It is so sad that a person can say something and someone cannot understand what is written. Just WHERE did I say I was FOR the change? You know McBunz, you could go back and read what I have said and try to understand what I have said rather than think you know what I feel or think. Sorry, but the way my horses are measured isn't going to change their real size at all. I have both A's and B's and love them for what they are and I resent the fact that you are assuming something of me that is not a fact at all. I am not showing and if you knew me, you would know this, and not have to ask if it is all about "waves". As I have said before I just want to be informed and I hope others want to be informed as well. Making the sad insinuations that you are, is not going to help the cause at all. Please be well informed about what I have said before telling me what I have or haven't said. Thank you, Mary

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..

 

[Minimor]

I think that some of the people that are yipping on here about the measurement spot not actually changing haven't actually gone out and looked for that magical spot at the base of the withers. If in fact they have and their horses all have mane hairs that end at the very base of the wither, good for them, how lucky can they get? There isn't a one of mine that has mane growing to the base of the wither. Using the new spot to measure will make all of mine smaller than they were before....on paper. Of course they are still just as tall as they are, and as they ever were! Not a one of mine measures taller by using this new spot. All are smaller, some only a 1/2 inch, some closer to an inch. On some the base of the wither is easy to find....I think

On others it is much harder to determine, and I'm quite sure that on some of them if 3 different people were to pick out the base of the wither each of the 3 would come up with a different vertabrae to measure at!

 

[wpsellwood]

On others it is much harder to determine, and I'm quite sure that on some of them if 3 different people were to pick out the base of the wither each of the 3 would come up with a different vertabrae to measure at!

So your really dont think its the same way with the last hair of the mane? I went to a/r show one each day same horses different measurements.

 

[Minimor]

It is and it isn't the same with the last mane hair. For my part, mane hair is quite obvious from body hair...unless of course I were wanting to cheat, then I might be inclined to say no, this little tuft of hair right here IS mane hair, though in truth I know it isn't.

I think it's truly stupid to measure at the last mane hair too, but with that being the accepted spot, what on earth is the point of changing one stupid spot for another stupid spot, one that is even more ambiguous to more people???

And don't, please, spout the nonsense about this new spot being "bone" and therefore not open to cheating. That doesn't fly. First off, half the people can't find this spot, and of the other half, probably half of them aren't really as accurate as they think they are when it comes to finding the base of the wither. Add to that the fact that if you stand a horse stretched and spraddle legged he is still going to measure smaller than if he stands square, even if you are measuring at a bone.

And the biggest farce of all is for the registry to continue the story that they have the only true miniatures, 34" and under, because this new measurement spot makes that a complete fairy tail. When horses that were too tall to show or even to keep their papers before now measure in at this new spot...get serious about what size those horses really are!

 

[McBunz]

"It is so sad that a person can say something and someone cannot understand what is written. Just WHERE did I say I was FOR the change? You know McBunz, you could go back and read what I have said and try to understand what I have said rather than think you know what I feel or think. Sorry, but the way my horses are measured isn't going to change their real size at all. I have both A's and B's and love them for what they are and I resent the fact that you are assuming something of me that is not a fact at all. I am not showing and if you knew me, you would know this, and not have to ask if it is all about "waves". As I have said before I just want to be informed and I hope others want to be informed as well. Making the sad insinuations that you are, is not going to help the cause at all. Please be well informed about what I have said before telling me what I have or haven't said. Thank you, Mary"

What else can I assume when all your arguments are directly pointed at our group. I don't

see you asking who voted for this change at the meeting or what right they had to do so. Again.... We are a group of concerned AMHA members trying to make positive changes for all AMHA members.. We are doing it all according to the rules of the AMHA. We have stated over and over again why we are against the rule change. We are trying to get the vote for all members so unpopular changes don't happen again without the entire membership having the chance to vote. We are just as much AMHA members as the people who voted this measure rule into existence.. and have every right in the world to try to get this silly rule tossed

out. I tried to find this spot on my horses.. they are a little chubby and in good shape after a long

winter, and I can find no identifiable notch, bone or what have you..

 

[maestoso]

What is the goal of this group? Is your goal to stop this amendment AND change the measuring point to the top of the withers? Or is it to have the measuring spot remain at the last mane hair? It would benefit eveyrone for you to make that clear.....

 

[McBunz]

Our goal is to get the measure done where the majority of the membership of AMHA wants it done.. From the poles you can see it certainly is not at the base of the withers.. My choice would be to leave it as it was, but if

the majority want it at the top of the withers I am fine with that.. As long as every member has the chance

to vote for their choice.

 

[Mona]

What is the goal of this group?

First things first. Right now our goal is to try to stop the new rule from taking effect. All we are for at this time is support via means of AMHA member signatures, is to have the rule rescinded.

So, if you would like to read the petition and/or sign it, you can do so by clicking HERE .

 

[maestoso]

Well if the majority of the AMHA members want it at the top of the withers, we are still going to face every problem that people are siting now(apart from taller horses getting in) but in my opinion, finding a fair and easy grandfathering system would be WAY harder and confusing than letting taller horses in.

I am OK wit measuring at the base of the withers, I would also be OK with leaving it at the last mane hairs, or at the top of the withers, however, a change has already been made. I would not be in support of another change unless it is accompanied with concrete ideas for solutions. That's why I was interested in the goal.

Your goal is to give members the right to vote, including absentee voting. Is your group ALSO writing a proposal bylaw amendment to allow for that. If not, it seems like that is an important missing piece.

Proposing a change without solutions to inevitable problems tends to lead to a dead end and even more frustration. One change without direction is no better than another change without direction OR a current problem with no solution.

I am not suggesting what you are doing is wrong, or that I have the answers, because I most certainly don't. But this is a big mess. Without a solution your change will be no better than the one we just had.

 

[Teresa]

Good grief, I posted the muscle group of a gaited horse and every one is assuming I voted one way or the other. I wasn't quite sure exactly how the withers were on a horse so I searched the internet and shared what I found.

Mary Lou, I didn't say I could find the bottom of the withers. ......I've searched and can't find them. Do I need to put in every detail before a post is taken completely out of context. I apologize for trying to pass on some non-bias information.

 

[McBunz]

I am sorry if I took your posts the wrong way Mary and Teresa. I like the rest on either side of this debate tend to get frustrated after awhile..

 

[Mona]

Matt, like I said in my previous post, first things first. Yes, we are working on a voting proposal, but that is not what we are here discussing at this time.

Well if the majority of the AMHA members want it at the top of the withers, we are still going to face every problem that people are siting now(apart from taller horses getting in) but in my opinion, finding a fair and easy grandfathering system would be WAY harder and confusing than letting taller horses in.

Well, just because it is EASIER, does NOT make it right, or the better way to go.

Everyone has the right to their opinion and to what THEY choose to support. I am personally working with some people that share a common desire in this matter, and we will do our best to try to make it happen.

 

[Tango]

Matt,

In response to your concerns:

"I would not be in support of another change unless it is accompanied with concrete ideas for solutions."

That is exactly why the group is petitioning to have the new measuring rule repealed. There were no "concrete ideas for solutions". This rule was voted in based on opinions and not facts.

Writing a bylaw change proposal for voting goes without saying.

"Proposing a change without solutions to inevitable problems tends to lead to a dead end and even more frustration"

Matt, I couldn't have said that better myself, you are exactly right. That is why the petition was started.

Nikki

 

[Katiean]

I do not care where they want to measure a horse at. Just pick a spot and stick with it.

 

[Buckskin gal]

Mary Lou, I know it is not just your posts tat may get twisted or taken out of context....I know mine do also and it is frustrating. Far too much assuming goes on with what a person can say, also. I do not intend to offend either, but I do like to get as much information as I can about an issue before making my choice and decisions....I don't think this is a crime, as some seem to think it is. I know I am sick and tired of having people say I have said something which is usually just something they have assumed or misunderstood. I have never intended to hurt or offend anyone either and yet it seems it has happened. I just hope everyone can forgive and move on to the betterment and enjoyment of our minis. It does seem that just because I asked some questions, somebody assumed something that wasn't so....and thank you Mc Bunz for the apology. It is well taken and I do hope you guys are successful in all your efforts. Mary

I am truly sorry Teresa if you feel I offended you with my post.. that was honestly not my intension.. Just trying to get people out to measure their horses at where they feel is the "bottom of the withers" and see if it is an easy thing to find for them.. that is all.. There was no intention to hurt nor offend you. Again, I am sorry..

I think this will be my last post on this topic FOREVER.. Things that I say get too twisted.. I never claim to be good at writing.. So I am signing out of this topic..

 

[McBunz]

Well I truly apologize to Teresa as well.. I really did make a mistake here and I am sorry. OH!

 

[maryann]

I have not posted on this issue until now . So I guess its time .

I just want to thank those that have put this petition forward

becuse I think they feel strongly about it and it takes guts to

do something about it.You have done a lot of research on how to do this

and took time and expense to put it out there for everyone else

to sign if they choose to do so.

I have heard negative things about those

that have put out this petition but only from those that say negative

things about everyone anyway. So needless to say what they

said did not mean anything to me.

I do not know if this new rule is wrong or right. But I truely do not think

enough thought was put into it before it went into effect. I think more

research was needed before it was voted on. There are

too may unanswered questions as to what will happen to the over horses

that lost their papers. If they measure in at the base can they be reinstated?

If so will there be a charge? Will measuring in at the base change the height

a horse already is measured in at? Was there a large number of horses measured

to collect enougt data to know for sure? I believe all the what ifs should be factored

in before any rule is changed.

I think if you read the petition you will see that it is not asking for AMHA not to measure

at the base of the withers, but to stop the new ruling until more research can be done and

more members are made aware of it. And to me that is not a bad thing. If you agree that

enough research was done and enough menbers were aware of it then by all means don't

sign it.If you don't think enough research was done and enough members were not aware of it

then sign it. Its just that simple.

One thing these postings has done is to make us more aware of what needs to be done

before a convention vote. I know I will stay more aware of what is up for change in the

future. I believe that is a positive for AMHA.

These were just my thoughts on the subject. Mary F

 

[Dona]

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

EXCELLENT POST MARYLOU!

You have echoed my feelings exactly!

 

[McBunz]

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.....

If the wording was the only chance that would be one thing.. but this is allowing horses into the AMHA

that are taller than the 34 inches at the last hair of the mane, some as much as an inch from what I

have been reading here.. I can't find the magic spot to measure mine..

The AMHA was founded on horses 34 inches and under.. so this is a huge change. It also seems a lot

of breeders are breeding to the limit to get the more horse like miniature. Good and fine..but what happens

a couple of years down the road when they then want horses allowed into the AMHA that are even taller

to achieve this big horse look.. Far as I can see this is what the AMHR is for.. The AMHA is suppose to

be for achieving the smallest most perfect horse.... not the tallest.

And what a mess it is going to be for people with horses that now measure within the new rule and for

the AMHA to try to keep the peace when this comes into effect..

 

[sfmini]

Here's another twist to the topic.

I have a colt with a height guarantee. Emailed the breeder, said I was pretty sure he was over and would measure. She asked me to measure both ways and if he was under with the new method, keep him. I said, no, I bought the horse to show in both registries so that wasn't acceptable. Turns out he is over. Period. BTW, I couldn't find the magic spot and he isn't fat.

I can see this becoming an issue for those folks with guaranteed horses that go over just a bit..... OH!