Thoughts about measuring, height vs. breed, etc.

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

This is where different opinons come in, as far as I can see. I have seen you say you prefer the taller minis so whether you are breeding or not my understanding from what you have said previously is that you do prefer the taller minis and I was just poiniting out that those who prefer the smaller have that right. And I didn't say you said anyone was having a hissy fit...please read what I say and not add more to it than what was meant. Thanks, mary

Mary the size horse I prefer has nothing to do with the questions I asked of course everyone has a right to like what they want that was never an issue brought up on any of these threads nor does that fact answer any questions

runamuck I get what you are saying and it makes sense I dont know if it truly applies to miniature horses but would think logically that maybe it does? I guess that is one of the things we will learn in the future but until then .. reading those things does help the whole thing to make some sense at least to me

 

[Songcatcher]

There are certain posters on this Forum who I long ago blocked messages from because they do nothing but put down the smaller horses at every opportunity. So, I realize that there may have been comments on here that I am totally unaware of.

I find it amazing that some people take the attitude "Everyone breeds oversized minis, so we ought to make it legal." That's kind of like "everyone cheats on their taxes so we should make it legal", "everyone steals a little so we should make it legal", "everyone lies, so it is OK". I can only conclude that those who so outspokenly proclaim that "everyone does it" are the ones who are indeed dishonest, decietful, and responsible for the breed standard not being upheld. They should be banned from the registry. But, they often proudly proclaim how they quit AMHA for this or that reason. Yet, they continue to want to criticize and try to force others to do what they want.

Seems like the same topic on three or four threads.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Minimor]

This is where different opinons come in, as far as I can see. I have seen you say you prefer the taller minis so whether you are breeding or not my understanding from what you have said previously is that you do prefer the taller minis and I was just poiniting out that those who prefer the smaller have that right. And I didn't say you said anyone was having a hissy fit...please read what I say and not add more to it than what was meant. Thanks, mary

Mary, you are missing the point of Lisa's question completely. She's asking much the same thing I asked earlier on in this thread. (Becky did somewhat answer my initial question--thank you to her!) Lisa isn't saying that those breeding for the smallest shouldn't breed for that small size. No one that I've seen has said any such thing.
If AMHA were to change tomorrow & allow horses up to 36" that would in no way take away anyone's right to breed for the under 30" horses. It's not as if anyone is proposing to make it a rule that horses must be between 32" and 36"--they could still be as small as anyone wants/tries to breed them! It's not either/or--it can be both, giving more choices for people who want to participate in AMHA.

The question is simply--how does opening the registry "ruin" things for those wanting to breed the tiny Miniatures? There are already 35" and 36" horses with AMHA papers being used in AMHA breeding programs. So, officially allowing them to keep their AMHA papers doesn't change anything. The 35" and 36" horses are either in AMHA officially or they are there on the sly. I know some people do turn in papers if the horse goes over 34", so I suppose allowing the height limit to increase to 36" might add a few more of the taller horses back into the mix. However, so many don't turn their papers in, I question how much difference it would really make, numbers wise.

I understand what Becky was saying earlier--she doesn't want the taller horses in her pedigrees. I do see where she's coming from. However, if the 35 or 36" horses were allowed to be in AMHA legally, their heights would likely be reported properly on their permanent papers, which would actually make it easier for people to pick and choose horses that truly are small--people would be less likely to fudge measurements. Sure, then maybe you're going to get some 36.5" horses being registered as 35.75", but still--if you only want the under 33" ones, you're not going to go & buy a 35.75" horse. Preventing the 34+" horses from being "legally" registered isn't going to remove those taller horses out of the pedigrees of existing horses so there are always going to be the taller genes to deal with, like it or not.

I could see people being violently opposed to opening the registry to the 36" size limit IF doing so was going to result in loss of papers for any horse under, say, 29"--but such is not the case.

Sure, the founding fathers of AMHA chose to allow horses no taller than 34", but many things evolve and change from what was initially decided. Such was the case of AMHR, for one. AMHR also began life as a 34" and under registry, and then years later it changed to include the taller horses. How has that harmed AMHR? AMHR still has small horses, right down to the tiny 28" and under. As I said before, look how many under division horses are shown at Nationals. At many of the local shows the under classes still have the biggest numbers.

I'm still not seeing anyone really explain how adding in 35 and 36" horses would harm AMHA? From what I'm reading no one really has any idea of how it would be harmful, it's just not the way it's been, and so they don't want it to be.

edited to add--having just read songcatchers post...are you denying that "anyone" (or "many") use 35" horses for AMHA breeding? I know very well they do, and no, I'm not one of them--I don't even have an AMHA horse at the moment--I have a few under 34's but have bred for the over 34 ones and am proud of them--and I won't be trying to pass any of them off as being under 34! However, in the few years I've been in Minis I've had enough people show me the tall horses they bought as 34" or smaller AMHA horses, with AMHA papers...to know that yes, there are plenty of people out there who are using taller horses in their programs and selling off the tall ones on small sized papers. I'm certainly not saying "everyone" does it--I do know that "everyone" doesn't do it, because I know some people who do turn in their AMHA papers on the horses that go over 34". Just because some "cheat" doesn't mean everyone does, but likewise just because not everyone cheats means that noone does!

I actually think maybe you would get more honest measurements if the 35 & 36" horses were "legal"--the 34.5" horses wouldn't be as likely to get passed off as being 33". I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that such would be the case.

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

Thanks minimor that is all I am looking for nothing about preference heck I have a 29.50 horse who I love so much he has the best work ethic of any horse on the place and I must admit he is the cutest

It isnt about that.

and once again the way it was explained to me in theory anyway since that is all we have now is theory is that in animals such as rabbits, some dogs whatever the dwarf gene in its single form gives you very much desired and sought after results it is when they are doubled up that you get the opposite so I am thinking???? that runamuck (who can speak for herself I am sure) is not meaning that as offensive or an insult but in a way that someone who understands it in other animals would... does that make sense at all?

and of course that is a guess no one knows how many it even takes to make a dwarf ect...

 

[PrestigeMiniHorses]

"where the cutoff is I don't know BUT I highly suspect it is right around 28 inches or just below"

I am highly offended by this statement. I don't disrespect those who breed taller minis and for someone to say such a comment is absurd. I have to say I do not own a mini smaller than 28" but he's right on that line though and I must say he exhibits no characteristics of being a dwarf whatsoever. I even know a mini that is owned by my dear friend ,who is a fellow forum member ,who owns a stallion that is 25" and he definitly isn't a dwarf. I agree that with the rabbit breeders the dwarf gene is necessary but with minis that the gene is entirely different. With the minis weren't they all created by breeding down. I don't think there was dwarf gene in there to make them smaller. Granted yes a dwarf is a small horse but a abnormal small horse at that.

 

[CritterCountry]

If you take dwarfism out of rabbit breeds that weigh under 4 lbs you would no longer have rabbits under 4 lbs.

Again the gene is neccessary.

here is an interesting article on the max factor gene and peanut causing gene in dwarf rabbits.

http://islandgems.net/maxfactor.html

I used to breed mini rex, polish dwarf and netherland dwarf rabbits (all under 4 pnds) for 7 years. Yep, the dwarf gene produces deformed 'peanuts' and you have to get used to the fact that it does happen. And they always die within 5 days. I think almost every litter of my dwarfs have had peanuts in them. It is unusual to NOT have them. And yes, if you eliminated the dwarf gene, there would be no small rabbits. Just as in dogs, cats and horses. What I found improved the chances of less peanuts was breeding larger females to smaller males. The smallest ones would have the most peanuts. Go figure. The larger ones, less so. I don't know what the answer is with horses because you breed for one foal, not a litter like rabbits. There is a lot more money and time invested in a foal, and to take a chance with any horse that throws dwarfs is a big leap and a costly investment. Can't we take the well conformed smaller minis with no dwarf characteristics and breed them? I know it does not guarantee a normal foal, but unfortunately until tests are readily available, this is the only way to find out. I think people who breed FOR dwarfs need their heads read. But then I do not know anyone who has personally.

If you personally like the smaller ones and can handle the unknown with your breeding program, than all the power to you. But I think it is wrong of the AMHA to take favor of the smaller ones, this is a pressure I don't understand. Even 36" or 37" minis are small compared to many ponies and horses, so I don't see the need to pressure for smaller horses. Personally I prefer the AMHR registry for this reason. JMHO!!

 

[miniwhinny]

Because the main feature of all 200 documented dwarfisms is short stature. So it seems in my mind at some point horses are a dwarf....where the cutoff is I don't know BUT I highly suspect it is right around 28 inches or just below.

Of course dwarfs are SMALL...that's a common feature of ALL dwarfs of ALL species that's why they are called DWARFS. It doesn't make every SHORT person, horse, dog, bird or plant a DWARF. Dwarfism is a genetic abnormality and is totally unrelated to short stature.

I have a really good friend who's 4'7" as a 40 year old adult. She's not a dwarf, she's just a short person. Her proportions are perfect, just petite. I know this board is open to free speech, but really, I find your statement very offensive. There are some awesome breeders ( I can think of one in particular) who specialize in very small mini's and they are all exceptional.

 

[Margot]

AMHA has chosen to make 34" the cutoff point for their horses, do people breed horses over 34" ? yes, but if they changed it to 36" than people would be breeding 37" horses. There is nothing a breed association can do about people that cheat unless they go inspect every registered horse. My horses are all double registered, if they go over 34" they are still AMHR registered. I breed for under horses and just have to live with the fact that they sometimes go over. There are people with AMHR horses over 38" that are breeding them, it is just an unfortunate fact of life that not everyone plays by the rules, changing them will not do a bit of good. In my ten years of breeding I had two dwarfs, both early on. They were from two different stallions, one of which was 32" and the mare was over 30". That stallion had two dwarfs from his first foal crop, the other was from an even bigger mare, I had already sold him and I immediately told the person who bought him about it. He is still registered in my name so I just hope he is now a gelding. I do not think that size is always a factor in why some combinations have dwarfs and since there are so many types of dwarfism we may never know.