Straight from the office of AMHA

[LisaF.]

Including Lifetime members and youth ( Everyone combined)

As of today the correct total of AMHA Paid Members is -

10,720 - Paid Members

Now remember aproximatly 100 of these members make it to the meeting.

I was curious and thought others may be curious also.

 

[Neil]

Including Lifetime members and youth ( Everyone combined)

As of today the correct total of AMHA Paid Members is -

10,720 - Paid Members

Now remember aproximatly 100 of these members make it to the meeting.

I was curious and thought others may be curious also.

Thank you for checking.

 

[Relic]

l would have thought a heck of a lot more members that is really only a spit in the bucket...does anyone have a count of how many A registered minis there are??

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

Including Lifetime members and youth ( Everyone combined)

As of today the correct total of AMHA Paid Members is -

10,720 - Paid Members

Now remember aproximatly 100 of these members make it to the meeting.

I was curious and thought others may be curious also.

So approximately 1% decides everything for the 99% rest of us?

*sigh*

Lucy

 

[minimomNC]

I know there are very legitmate reasons for not making it to the meetings. I do not dispute that at all. But like Neil said, there are alot who just don't care. If you take off the 100 that went this year, that leaves you with 10,620 members. So lets take off youth, large estimate at say 4000 just to be maybe close to the high end. That will leave 6020 members. Now take off the ones that honestly can not go for very good reasons and lets make that high again say 4000 members. That leaves you with 2020 members who could have gone and had their voice heard and just don't care. But just for the sake of it, say those 2020 also went to the meeting and voted on something you didn't like, wouldn't you feel the same no matter how many went? Its not the number, its how the votes went. be honest, if the vote had been to have the measuring at the withers none of this would even be debated right now. Its only because alot of people didn't like the votes that they finally stood up and said, We don't like this anymore. Maybe this will end up being one of the best things to happen to AMHA. Its finally getting people with a voice to use it, no you might not be able to go to a meeting but you want to change the way things are done, to me thats a huge start in the right direction. No matter what my opinion is or yours is, all we truly want is a better organization that is there to benefit us and our horses. Thats the bottom line in my eyes.

 

[chandab]

Including Lifetime members and youth ( Everyone combined)

As of today the correct total of AMHA Paid Members is -

10,720 - Paid Members

Now remember aproximatly 100 of these members make it to the meeting.

I was curious and thought others may be curious also.

So approximately 1% decides everything for the 99% rest of us?

*sigh*

Lucy

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Neil]

I know there are very legitmate reasons for not making it to the meetings. I do not dispute that at all. But like Neil said, there are alot who just don't care. If you take off the 100 that went this year, that leaves you with 10,620 members. So lets take off youth, large estimate at say 4000 just to be maybe close to the high end. That will leave 6020 members. Now take off the ones that honestly can not go for very good reasons and lets make that high again say 4000 members. That leaves you with 2020 members who could have gone and had their voice heard and just don't care. But just for the sake of it, say those 2020 also went to the meeting and voted on something you didn't like, wouldn't you feel the same no matter how many went? Its not the number, its how the votes went. be honest, if the vote had been to have the measuring at the withers none of this would even be debated right now. Its only because alot of people didn't like the votes that they finally stood up and said, We don't like this anymore. Maybe this will end up being one of the best things to happen to AMHA. Its finally getting people with a voice to use it, no you might not be able to go to a meeting but you want to change the way things are done, to me thats a huge start in the right direction. No matter what my opinion is or yours is, all we truly want is a better organization that is there to benefit us and our horses. Thats the bottom line in my eyes.

I certainly agree that 100 members is very low but it is for the most part 100 of the AMHA working members. Members that are there because they have a job to do and not just members that happened to show up.

Of the 10,720 paid members the following do not hava a vote; Regular Members under the age of 19 (with some additional restrictions), Associate Members and Youth. I have no idea how many of the paid members this is.

I have to say that I have been wondering about the comment that you made above that I have highlited in red. What if the change had been for measuring at the top of the withers and it had been voted in, how would the membership feel. By measuring at a higher point than the last hair of the mane some horses would be measured out. Would there be members that would be up in arms about that? Just a thought. We might be having this same discussion but just with different players.

 

[Reble]

10,620 members and only 100 attended

Yes, to be honest, this measuring issue does not bother my husband and I.

We know what we want and like our breeding program and show horses.

This will not affect our horses.

My tallest AMHA horse is 32.25"

Great watching the meeting over the internet, so things are changing.

Just not as fast as some would like

 

[LisaF.]

I was feeling the same way when AMHA gave me the number of paid members. This is very sad, that 1% is making the decissions for us.

minimomNC - You made a very good point - even though you gave a high estimate of 4000 members that for one reason or another honestly can't go. That is why we need mail in or internet voting.

I have seen mail in or internet voting discussed for a very long time. I really feel people want it.

I can honestly say we have more than 100 people that really do care about AMHA, but honestly can't make it to the meeting.

Neil - You are welcome - It is really hard to debate something if we do not have the facts straight and that is why I decided to call AMHA today to get the correct number of paid members.

 

[trickhorses]

10,620 members and only 100 attended

Yes, to be honest, this measuring issue does not bother my husband and I.

We know what we want and like our breeding program and show horses.

This will not affect our horses.

My tallest AMHA horse is 32.25"

Great watching the meeting over the internet, so things are changing.

Just not as fast as some would like

But it does concern those that have 33.75 & 34" horses and measuring them at the wither could cause them to go oversize. Thankfully, I don't have any AMHA horses that are close enough to 34" for it to matter, however it will concern me when it comes to show time as I want mine to qualify for the classes they have always qualified for based on their height and that could change with the new height rule. I know many are going to be frustrated that show in the 30" and under class as if they measure at the wither, it could cause them to not qualify for that class anymore

. I totally understand where people are coming from and their concerns. What I want to know is why AMHA picked NOW after all these years to change the rule?

 

[TripleDstables]

I'm not renewing my membership until I know for sure that I am staying with AMHA minis. (I have my current 3 up for sale) So, I was a paid member!

 

[R3]

trickhorses,

The measuring rule (which many of us now want to get stopped, before it comes into effect) that passed at the last AMHA annual meeting is to measure the horses at the Base of the Withers (BOTW). If a horse is measured at that point, it will measure 'smaller' or close to the same size as it did when measured at the Last Hair of the Main (LHOM).

So, if your horse has always measured 34" at the LHOM, your horse may only be 33" when measured at the BOTW. If you have a taller horse, this 'new' rules will not put it 'over'.

The new rule will allow 'taller' horses to be part of the registry, as there are going to be a lot of horses that for years have been over 34" tall that will now 'shrink' to under 34" when measured at the BOTW.

 

[Tango]

"The new rule will allow 'taller' horses to be part of the registry, as there are going to be a lot of horses that for years have been over 34" tall that will now 'shrink' to under 34" when measured at the BOTW."

And that is exactly why that rule was "passed". It had nothing to do with difficulty in finding the last hairs of the mane or to eliminate cheating. I am glad it has finally been clarified.

Nikki

 

[coopermini]

For those that think 1% of the members making the decisions are terrible have you considered how few people actually make the decisions to run this country? your state, or even your town.

Just an example our town has nearly 17,000 people. Not all are 18 and over and some others may not legally be able to vote. At town meeting every year turn out usually is less than 100 to vote on a $30 million+ budget. On the other extreme can you imagine the mess if all 17,000 each had their own version of what the budget should?

Each and every one of us has the oppertunity to be part of the 1%

 

[R3]

Tango, what I clarified was the IMPACT of the rule change. It does not clarify the WHY of the rule change, as you are suggesting. There is NO WAY that my response endorses your interpretation of WHY the rule was passed.

Castle Rock, I think it is a real 'leap' of logic to take something that was proposed in 2006 in a committe meeting, to recognizing the taller AMHA pedigreed horses in some 'different' way (NOT as AMHA horses) to saying that it has significantly 'morphed' into the proposal to measure at the Base of the Withers.

I was at the 2007 Meeting, and I think I remember some of the controversy regarding the issue of the taller horses, but I will have to do more research before I speak intelligently on the subject. I do believe that the idea that was put forth in the meeting minutes you are referencing was also discussed/cussed here on this Forum, but again, I would have to go do more research.

Also, rather than using this topic for discussing other items, I would suggest that if you want the most people to comment on the measuring issue, or on the 'oversize' horse issue, it would be better to put it in a topic with the appropriate heading. There are a lot of people who may actually have knowledge about these things who will not be reading this thread after the intitial topic was answered... how many members does AMHA have.

 

[Boinky]

I guess technically we all have the "right" to vote by traveling hundreds/thousands of miles to go to the convention. Yes our country runs off a small percentage of people voting but all towns have their own voting so you don't have to travel a million miles to do the voting AND You can do absentee ballots if your interested. Plus our people don't REALLY have a say in who we vote in. It's already decided by who they put up for candidates AND the electoral college really has the say in the end not truly the people. Everyone truly has a means to vote IF they want to in relative convenience as far as our governmental voting goes.

Many people as far as AMHA is concerned really are not ABLE to vote in any sort of convenience unless you have the time and money to be able to go. They do not have the money or the time off to get there. There is absolutely no reason that they cannot do absentee paper/internet voting like most other registries do. Will you have a large percentage of people that don't care and don't vote? ABSOLUTELY.... but those that DO care can have a say and WILL send in their ballots. To me that is truly allowing the membership to have a say in matters.

I would personally be more satisfied with new rules and regulations EVEN IF it didn't go the way i had voted.. if it had been properly presented to the membership and all members had the right to conveinently and easily vote and if the membership voted one way (even if it's not the way i wanted) it would not bother me nearly as much as 1% of the population voting on it even when we know there are MANY MANY MANY people that DO care and WOULD vote if they could legitimately do so without breaking their bank ect.

 

[minimomNC]

I have been looking at other equine associations and from what I have found, and I could be wrong but AQHA, APHA & AMHA (morgans) do not have voting by members except for directors or have voting for members who physically attend the annual meeting. In AQHA their directors are the ones who vote on everything. ApHC does have mailing ballots but I couldn't understand how or when that was used as to the annual meeting. Its was just about changing or amending bylaws.

And for clarification, I am not saying members who can't go to the annual meeting shouldn't vote, I am just researching how huge organizations like AQHA and APHA handle voting. Both of these organizations probably have their own share of problem but they are also very successful as well.