WHAT ARE THE DIRECTORS DOING TO AMHA??!!

[Sun Runner Stables]

McBunz-

Goodness- I don't know if you managed to not check your bonnet before you put it on with that bee in it- But from some one who doesn't show, has just a few horses, and from what I can see has never cared about this reg (AMHA) asides to sell your horses- You are sure a little rabble rouser on here by what I can find and search up on all your past postings. It's not very appealing to say the least.

I can see the point that Mary Lou and Mona are making very easily, and had it not been outlined the way it has, I would be upset as well!

However, I most respectfully disagree. And I do mean respectfully, I really admire and respect Both of these women a great deal-

The rule is not stating that 34 1/4 is Okay at all times, just under duress in a protest.

As I said before, I have been in that room, and while not ever in the hot seat, I would be glad to spot that 1/4 in to a True 34 inch horse who's cold and blown up from the tension.

With all the Huge freaking horses being shown, I'd Love to see a simple 1/4 over all the time as the norm. Have any of you as yet measured your Own animals, or seen what a 1/4 inch Really looks like?

I totally agree that measuring needs to change, I was even okay with bottom of the wither, as you could Feel that notch, (Least I could) I would be fine with Top of the wither, (and making some sort of grandfather agreement with the new now 'Over' stock.) - But I have big horses, and that's the norm to me.

Also, my total life does not relay on my minis money wise.

They are a very enjoyable sport for me, and honestly relaxing after our Big horse politics. (I train/show pony hunters- it doesn't get much more annoying or who's who, and we Still do well, despite being no-bodys-

)

This is a Small pond of people folks, and eventually we'll figure out that we have to get along or lose out. I firmly believe that this is a reg of good people who love these horses and love to show them off as well. (I enjoy Both reg's btw, just have more A horses then R's, so that's what I show.) I may come off a bit odd, but it's only as I tend to not get So hot and bothered by the issues, but rather by the way people react and behave-

Respectfully and with much humor and humility-

Whitney

 

[McBunz]

If you read all of my posts you would know that I am not a rabble rouser.. I don't even post that much for the length of time I have been a member..

I come here to learn just like the majority do.. I do stand up and bark when need be.. If you want to be a sheep and follow blindly, that is your right.

You really should order a rule book... they are free.. By the way I do have more than a few...

 

[R3]

I am on the fence about whether it is appropriate to allow the 1/4" leeway for the different height divisions. I can see both sides of that issue.

But, I am adamently opposed to allowing a horse to be 34 1/4" tall, even for a height protest.

There is a difference between a horse that measures out of its 30-32" grouping, by being 32 1/4" and a horse that EXCEEDS THE BREED STANDARD at 34 1/4".

To me, the 34" standard is 'sacred', it can not be allowed to be changed, even for a protest measurement. I do not believe the Directors had the authority to allow a horse to 'officially' measure over 34 inches without penalty. The powers of the Board's powers are limited:

Section 3, Powers of the Board of Directors

(A) Enumeration

The Board of Directors shall have the power and authority

to make, amend, repeal, and enforce such rules and

regulations, not contrary to law, the Articles of

Incorporation or these Bylaws, ...

The 34" maximum is firmly in our rule book, from one end to the other. Here are examples:

FORWARD:

As defined by AMHA, any horse that exceeds thirty-four (34)

inches in height is NOT a Miniature Horse and is not eligible

for registration.

ARTICLE XI - REGISTRY AND STUD BOOK

Section 2, Closed Registry

… with the exception that any Miniature Horse (over sixty (60) months

of age) which is thirty-four (34) inches or less in height with

one or more unknown or unregistered parents shall be permanently

registered upon payment of a non-refundable inspection

fee

Section 4, Permanent Registration

Permanent certificates of registration shall be issued to qualified

Miniature Horses who have attained the actual age of five

(5) years, and measures thirty-four (34) inches or less in

height,

Section 6, Breed Name and Size

Horses registered by The American Miniature Horse

Association, Inc., shall be a breed of horses known as the

American Miniature Horse. The American Miniature Horse

shall not exceed thirty-four (34) inches in height when measured

according to Article XI, Sec. 4 of these Bylaws. The registration

of any horse exceeding thirty-four (34) inches shall be

void and such horse shall not be considered or designated as

an American Miniature Horse.

184 REGISTRATION PROCEDURE

184E Term of Temporary Registration

Temporary certificates shall contain the following phrase

on the front of the certificate:

This certificate is valid until five (5) years of age (sixty

months) unless horse exceeds thirty-four (34) inches in

height.

184F Reinstatement

Revoked registration papers may be reinstated, provided

the horse is thirty-four (34) inches or less in height

184G Foals of Temporary Registered Parents

4. If the height of the temporary registered sire or dam

exceeds thirty-four (34) inches no further foals from

such parentage will be eligible for registration.

184H Foals of Permanent Registered Parents

If the height of the permanent registered sire or dam

exceeds thirty-four (34) inches the registration will

be VOID with AMHA and no further foals from such

parentage will be eligible for registration.

GR-020 HEIGHT VERIFICATION

A. No Miniature Horse shall exceed 34 inches in

height.

Weanlings must not exceed 30 inches.

Yearlings must not exceed 32 inches.

Two-year-olds must not exceed 33 inches.

CL-005 SHOW DISQUALIFICATIONS

C. Height

1. No horse shall exceed 34 inches in height.

2. Weanlings must not exceed 30 inches in height.

3. Yearlings must not exceed 32 inches in height.

4. Two-year-olds must not exceed 33 inches in height.

And, even on the registration papers themselves: (best I could read from the file on the AMHA website, I don’t have any papers here to look at.)

If at any time it is determined that the horse has exceeded 34 in height, this certificate will be voided…

I don't know how much clearer it needs to be. The maximum height is part of the Articles of Incorporation. The Directors can not change the maximum height, even during a protest measurement, to where the horse is allowed to exceed 34 inches. I was at the June meeting, and this fact was brought up before the Board, but many of the Directors chose to vote to allow this anyway.

I do not know if the issue has been brought up to the AMHA Legal Counsel to get a ruling, but I think it should be.

 

[Sun Runner Stables]

Nope not a sheep here-I'd be awfully hot here in FL, but I am one that does more then armchair horse showing.

(Pardon, that was a bit much- but sheep and experience are different critters and it worked to get a rise out of me- *sigh*

In fact sheep are a Pain! Whom ever started that, yeah, fail, the silly are pretty single minded the times I was trying to lead/herd them.)

I have a rule book, thank you kindly- however if you are feeling so generous and have such a collection- I wouldn't mind another- Heck I figure if it'll make me understand them so much better I should get a whole herd of them! *Sorry sorry- sigh-Again* I am by nature a sarcastic person, but this is just silly-

To imply that my understanding of said rules is lessened as I don't have copies sitting at my feet- ? I may have misunderstood, if so, my apologies.

I have read the rules- I still stand by what I said, happily and with out any grumpiness. Truly.

Until you have Been there and Done it, I strongly feel that it's a pretty moot point. This was done to Protect the people who are out there setting the highest standards and reaching for the highest star. The problem lies in the way we measure Period. Not in the lee way given to Honest horses who have been Unfairly protested. If the horse in a protest measures over 34 1/4- they are Out. Period. That's fair to me. I hope that'll stop the 35 inch game, really really. But do I think it will? Not totally until they change the way we measure our animals.

But taking a honest 34 inch horse and kicking them for getting tensed under re-measurement is a nasty game, and one I'd have all sympathy for those involved.

Now that I have soundly proved I need a break and a snack-

Whitney

*Whew after all that just saw R3's- Now That is a beautifully written and well stated opinion. Thank you for a well said post that states everything so nicely- Laid out like that makes it understandable for those who are fine with the 1/4 rule. *

 

[McBunz]

It was more than a few horses, not more than a few rule books.. I do have AMHR horses as well. If AMHR was changing their standard I am sure

we would be fighting just as hard. This is not and never was bashing the AMHA . I is all about following rules..

I did show dogs probably longer than you have lived.. I do understand animals get nervous..

 

[rabbitsfizz]

I have watched this thread with interest.....

Ignoring to total idiocy of the base of the withers the last hair of the mane etc etc, for the moment, this is what I do not understand...

WHY is it considered that the horse will be more nervous/tense etc at the protest than at the initial measuring??(please do not try to flim flam with all the "people in your face" bit etc as this is obviously just something that should not be happening- tell them to get out of your face, stand back where they should be etc-)

It is not as if all this were not laid out in the rule book...both the measuring and the protest measuring are governed by rules already in place.

There is NO need to allow quarter of an inch, just enforce the rules that are already there, for goodness sake!!

Get a grip people, it is not the quarter of an inch, it is the PRINCIPLE of the thing.

No-one is being a "rabble rouser"..why does everyone have to resort to personal attacks when they do not like the way things are going??

It is the right of EVERY member to question EVERY action of the BOD (Yes I have been on Committees and BODs I KNOW what goes on, believe me!!) it is STILL the members right to question and to have everything explained, over and over until they understand.

Basically, this ruling breaks every principle of the AMHA (I should insert "yet again" here, but I shall be accused of...well, something, I am sure!!) and it should be removed immediately, and then openly discussed, not just "slid in".

It is far too important an issue for that.

 

[Charley]

Get a grip people, it is not the quarter of an inch, it is the PRINCIPLE of the thing.No-one is being a "rabble rouser"..why does everyone have to resort to personal attacks when they do not like the way things are going??

It is the right of EVERY member to question EVERY action of the BOD (Yes I have been on Committees and BODs I KNOW what goes on, believe me!!) it is STILL the members right to question and to have everything explained, over and over until they understand.

Basically, this ruling breaks every principle of the AMHA (I should insert "yet again" here, but I shall be accused of...well, something, I am sure!!) and it should be removed immediately, and then openly discussed, not just "slid in".

It is far too important an issue for that.

Well said.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

JMS.. I also do not see it as bad with the 1/4 inch grace BUT I do have a problem with 1/4 inch over 34" as Tom O'Connell also pointed out... Perhaps ALL of us have a different take on this NEW POLICY.. I read it as "horses 34" has this 1/4" grace also".. WHICH is against the Standard of AMHA in the rulebook for registering and showing and Standard Of Perfection.. They have to change EVERYTHING in the Rulebook making an exception "AMHA horses can measure 34 1/4" when protested at shows".

I do agree with you Mary Lou the over 34" thing is what bothers me about this rule change. However if you give the 1/4" to everyone else thats not good either. Like I said eariler and I still feel like AMHA just put a band-aid over this measuring issue. I have a feeling its not going to be pernament.

 

[tagalong]

It was more than a few horses, not more than a few rule books.. I do have AMHR horses as well. If AMHR was changing their standard I am surewe would be fighting just as hard. This is not and never was bashing the AMHA . I is all about following rules..

I did show dogs probably longer than you have lived.. I do understand animals get nervous..

Bolding mine. McBunz - I wish I could be sure about that - but I am not - just based on the way such threads have run their course. Any kind of measuring indiscrepancies are messing with the standard. And if you are going to tell all of us that every AMHR horse measures true every single time and all is perfect and there are never any controversies or grievances there.... well, you can't. I am also sure that if you poured over the AMHR rules and procedures with the same microscopic intensity that you devote to AMHA that you would find instances where the board made a decision without consulting every single member - or some procedures were short cut for some reason.

Now - when anyone has pondered that^^^ in the past in these threads and raised those concerns.... they have haughtily and arrogantly been dismissed with a comment like - oh yes, pointing fingers at the other registry to deflect attention from the wrongdoings of this one.... which is rubbish. And shows complete disdain for the opinions of others, as well. There was/is no "deflection" involved. Some of us just see the Big Picture and wish to address that as well. Both registries are intertwined enough with all the double registered horses (like all horses here) that all the measuring issues should be addressed - as how best to uphold that standard we are so concerned about.

Comments like this - in response to the concerns that have been expressed about the way some of you have gone about addressing valid issues - but in a sensational, dramatic way....

If you want to be a sheep and follow blindly, that is your right.

...are simply rude and dismissive. So unless we agree with every word you say in the exact way you say it, we are sheep.

Unless we do not ask you questions or seek clarification of the procedures involved, we are sheep.

When we ask for links to back up figures you toss around - like only 5% of all AMHA members show - we are sheep.

Sheep... would not say anything.

WHY is it considered that the horse will be more nervous/tense etc at the protest than at the initial measuring??(

They can be tense at the initial measuring as well... but rabbitfizz - if you think the tension does not go up at a protest measuring for both horses and people - and can not appreciate that some horses react strongly to that - even experienced show horses... then it is obvious that you have never seen one. I can understand the reasoniing for the 1/4" leeway... but I am also wondering how it is to be dealt with at the 34" height. 1/4" is nothing... and yet it means a lot when the 34" level is pushed.

I once started a thread to express my concerns about how inadequate AMHR registration was a while back. And it was not titled OMG!! WHAT THE H*LL IS AMHR DOING!! OUTRAGEOUS!! OMG!! Nor did I yell in any way.

Itty-bitty markings diagrams that you needed a magnifying glass to be exact on... no photos, nothing. And all this when AMHA was doing DNA and photos... which in my mind was/is the way to go - for every breed registry. Some were furious with me for suggesting that photos or DNA were needed. That anything could possibly be wrong with AMHR in any way. And that nothing should change. EVER.

Well, time has passed - and we have photos required for registration now. And DNA soon to follow. That is one of the best ways to uphold any standard... document it. In detail.

Change is good. Now, we just need to invent a hi-tech measuring device that takes all the human error/input out of the process...

 

[McBunz]

Tagalong...

"...are simply rude and dismissive. So unless we agree with every word you say in the exact way you say it, we are sheep.

Unless we do not ask you questions or seek clarification of the procedures involved, we are sheep.

When we ask for links to back up figures you toss around - like only 5% of all AMHA members show - we are sheep.

Sheep... would not say anything."

You know as well as I do that the 5% comment was a a guesstimate.to make a point... and probably on the generous side.

When the AMHR break obvious rules they will get the same treatment from me as the AMHA. Like changing

the standard it was founded on.. And I was not the one that started the rude thing.. if you can not take what

you hand out that is to darn bad.. I do not expect people to agree with everything I say... I have more respect

for people than that.. Do You.. and yes the sheep comment was meant for you... If you can not see that serious mistakes

were made and just want to let them ride... yes a sheep...

 

[tagalong]

You know as well as I do that the 5% comment was a a guesstimate.to make a point... and probably on the generous side.

You do not know that 5% is on the generous side at all - and yet you more or less presented it as fact. So yes - I asked for a link to verify. No link, no fact. You would expect such facts from AMHA - and rightly so. Yet as part of your argument - you can simply pull things out of thin air? How does that work?

if you can not take whatyou hand out that is to darn bad.. I do not expect people to agree with everything I say... I have more respect

for people than that.. Do You.. and yes the sheep comment was meant for you...

Oh - I can take what I hand out, as you say. This board is very tame compared to what goes on elsewhere. But I have not sneered at others and called them sheep. I have not accused them of saying things they have not said - or suggested they were ignorant, stupid or lying - which has been the case in these threads when some of us have asked questions or sought clarification.

I have respect for well-thought out arguments and discussions - as many have posted here. I share all those concerns.

But as others have also noted, it is not the subject of the argument or discussions but the way some of you have gone about it at times that concerns us.

If you can not see that serious mistakeswere made and just want to let them ride... yes a sheep...

And if you can say that - then you have demonstrated that you only read the posts you want to read and only hear what you want to hear - as nowhere have I ever said - not in all the years I have been on this board or its previous incarnations - that such mistakes should be ignored or let go... I have not even said that in these threads. Not once.

Stick to facts... and your actions will have more meaning. JMO. YMMV.

 

[faithfarm]

Before this thing gets way out of hand, let's go back to the initial rule change. It gives a 1/4" allowance for a protested horse. The major concern seems to be that the horse measures 34 1/4" at the protest and should be tossed out. But, you should remember that the horse has already been measured and found to be 34" or less. Again, I have no problem spotting a horse 1/4" for the purpose of a protest. It's not the horses that are 1/4" too tall for a class that cause concerns, it's the horses that are 1"-2" above the height requirement for the class. This only addresses show horses being measured at a protest, it is not changing the standard as some profess.

If we have a problem with those who measure for the shows, that is another issue and definitely should be addressed. I would go for a fine of the measurer if a horse is protested and found to be over. Although, I would allow a !/4" difference in measurements. We all know that measurements are not an exact science.

 

[Margo_C-T]

I have taken all this time to 'breathe deeply' before commenting on this thread.

I am a member of the C.A.R.E. group; letters sent included my name. I can assure you that I would NOT be involved if this were a group of overreacting hotheads, as some of you who KEEP hammering away in your multiple posts on this thread would love to suggest. This is a group of genuinely concerned AMHA members who stepped up to the plate to TRY to not only point out LEGITIMATE concerns, but to make an honest effort,via specified procedures, to convince an organization(in this case, AMHA)to adhere to its OWN standards. If mistakes in approach have been made(though I really haven't seen any, and I am more critical than most)-- they were honest mistakes--yet some of you are delighting in using NASTINESS, RUDE sarcasm, patronizing attitudes, and inflammatory 'buzzwords' of invalid comparison in your determination to belittle this honest effort.

A couple of you are very young, and hopefully,your ill-natured words are mostly a lack of the judgement that 'should come' of greater maturity; one of you, presumably older, seems determined to convince us all that YOU are THE 'voice of reason',yet you use inflammatory comparisons that should be beneath your dignity--and you seem absolutely DETERMINED to 'have the last word'-to what end? It is my hope and belief that the response of thoughtful readers here will be recognition that in the main, your posts really do NOT offer much of anything constructive on this subject.

These discussions are NOT some sort of 'contest', where those who show are somehow considered to be 'more important' or have 'more valid opinions, as members, than those who don't! I have been on BOTH sides of the bar as far as showing goes--I have shown horses since the mid-70s in breed rings--and was a competitor in other horse venues much before that... and now, I seldom if ever will again breed show...does that make my thoughts invalid? (If you think so, then scroll on past...because here they are!)

I have competed in 6 AMHA National shows(about as often as I cared to go)--successfully. Beginning in 1991, I witnessed first-hand an 'evolution' of measurment there(as well as at local shows)--from very precise, at least for us 'nobodies'(rumor had it, even back then, that a 'favored few' may have gotten a BIT of a 'break'--but I never saw anything I was SURE was as 'big'as any number I've seen since! Then it became a fairly blatant 'break' for the 'big names'; then it went on to 'about everyone but the clear newbies/naive/nobodies' got a 'break'.....and the 'break' seems to have gotten more extreme over several years. You know, as a observer at the measuring at local shows, I remember watching a couple of local horses whose handlers not only s-t-r-e-a-c-h-e-d them, but then, quite literally placed the horse's chin on their shoulder and pointed its nose to the sky, in order to 'measure in'--This, the year BEFORE the 'must stand square, head in normal position, handler can't be touching'(I am paraphrasing the actual rule, but if you are familiar w/ the Rule Book, you recognize it...) went into effect--and thinking how GREAT it would be when THAT 'loophole' was closed(as it was by the afore-referenced rule.) It was; the existing Rulebook requirements are fully adequate to ensure an accurate measurment, IF THEY ARE STRICTLY ADHERED TO!!!!!

I believe, as has been well-stated by others, that if you have a horse that is overheight, you should expect to be disqualified. I happen to have shown three horses over the years that were at or just under 34"; I have NEVER been concerned, because I am a STICKLER for proper measurement, practice it regularly(on a proven LEVEL surface; correct measurement is a sad joke w/o this PRIME requirement),and under different circumstances(horse wet and chilly, hot and tired, etc.); I invested in an official Stick, and make sure it remains accurate--I KNOW how tall my horses TRULY are--and I expect an 'official' measurer to do their job correctly and honestly. Can a horse occasionally vary by a quarter inch? Yes, I'd say it can, but the three measurement average in the Rulebook already allows for that--and I think anyone who has been around and tried to measure accurately would acknowledge that the problems lie in 'much' greater overages than that!

On the subject of the decision to allow this ''quarter inch at protest'...which was NOT a unanimous "Yes"(to acknowledge the BOD members IN ATTENDANCE at the June meeting who, presumably remembering the Bylaws, and their own sense of ethics, voted AGAINST this travesty)...Rabbitsfizz was right. It is really NOT so much the 'quarter inch at protest'. IT IS THE FACT THAT ACCURACY IN MEASURING HAS BECOME SUCH A FARCE THAT PROTEST HAS BECOME WIDESPREAD!! (Yes, I MEANT to 'shout'!) How many of AMHA's members would agree that IF THE MEASURING WAS DONE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING RULES AND SPECIFIED PROCEDURES to begin with, MOST of the protests would not even be occuring??? (again, for emphasis--all caps!) DO IT PROPERLY,according to the published rules, THE FIRST time--there would then be little rationalization for this shilly-shallying!

I believe that it is VERY unlikely that a properly trained and handled horse will 'swell up' to become measurably taller at a properly run measurement. It is the JOB of the organization to ensure that ANY official measurment does NOT turn into a 'zoo' --I can hardly believe that such would be ALLOWED to happen at any properly-run show! Conversely, it is the JOB of the handler/trainer to instill proper manners in their horses. If you don't, that is YOUR problem, not everyone else's!!

Protest should NOT be 'used' to 'get at' someone else--but I have to say, as this situation has evolved within the miniature breed registries, I am NOT surprised that there may be those who are 'using' it that way. How many ways does it need to be said....FOLLOW THE RULES STRICTLY AS WRITTEN! Use truly qualified personnel, who HAVE A CLEAR DIRECTIVE FROM THE ORGANIZATION ITSELF that the rules ARE to be followed; that they are NOT expected nor 'rewarded' for 'giving in' to pressure to allow cheating, and allow them to know that they WILL be supported by the organization in the proper performance of their duties!

This would for awhile NOT be easy; once you have let some people believe that the rules really DON'T apply to them, those kind of people can and will be very 'difficult', to put it kindly. But you know what? It can and will work, IF and WHEN there is the DETERMINATION/"GRIT" on the part of the organization to make it so!

These attempts by those 'in charge' at AMHA to 'sidestep' the REAL issue of improper/incorrect/'cheating' measurement, by blatant VIOLATION/ALTERATION of their own Bylaws,Rules, and Breed Standards (examples: the 'base of the wither' notion, this most recent 'quarter inch at protest' 'Policy', NOT removing papers from horses when they are found to be overheight[ASK AMHA how many horses' papers they have pulled for being over 34" lately--and more to the point, ask WHY they have not been doing so? ]-- for instance)--will, I believe, sound a death knell for AMHA as we have known it. To break the faith (contract, if you will) with your own supporters (members, who pay the organization for this 'privilege', with which come rights ) seems to me to be REALLY unwise; does it to others, as members? And, what about the LEGALITY of some of these actions, according to our Rulebook; it seems unbelievable to me that this seems to have been ignored!!

I am definitely an advocate of reading and knowing the Rules; my current copy stays on my desk at all times. I have a copy of EVERY set of rules printed or published since 1984, and they are easily at hand. If you DO read them, take note of how many places the MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE height of an AMHA miniature horse is clearly spelled out--along with what is "SUPPOSED" to happen when a horse "is determined" to be over that height.

I've had my say. I am a longstanding Lifetime AMHA member, and I am not 'resigning', because I intend to have a vote. I believe that an honest accomodation of ALL qualified members to vote on important issues will be the only way to rebuild confidence in and support of AMHA(and I'd say the same should apply to AMHR.)

Margaret (Margo) Cox-Townsend

 

[McBunz]

"Oh - I can take what I hand out, as you say. This board is very tame compared to what goes on elsewhere. But I have not sneered at others and called them sheep. I have not accused them of saying things they have not said - or suggested they were ignorant, stupid or lying - which has been the case in these threads when some of us have asked questions or sought clarification."

I never once said you are anyone else was ignorant, stupid or lying... Far as I know I only called one person a sheep..

This is my last post on this subject..

..If you think my 5% is so far out of line check with the AMHA. People to raise one or two foals a year join just

to register these foals..

The estimate of 5 percent of the members of AMHA that show their horses was done 4 or 5 years ago in a survey AMHA did, however, AMHA did not advertise the issue because the response to the survey was very low. That percentage was taken when entries were much larger at all local, Championship and World Shows than they are today.

Just to do a quick analysis of how many AMHA members show their horses today, we take 5 percent of the number of members AMHA advertises they have. 12,000 on their website. That 5 percent would be 600 members.

I understand the largest local show held so far this year in AMHA was the Julip Cup in Kentucky which was 199 horses. The entries were way down from last year. The Estes Park Colorado show was only 42 horses this year. The minutes of the June 2008, Board meeting states in the treasurers report that show revenue is down from projected budget revenue.

The AMHA Finance statement of March 31, 2008, shows the revenue for drug testing at the 2006 World Show was $5,242 and the revenue for drug testing for the 2007 World Show was $9,720. We know the rules that every horse entered in the World Show is required to pay a $10 drug testing fee. If you divide 10 into $5,242 you find that only 524 horses were shown in 2006, and for 2007 the number of horses would be 970.

These are horses not individual exhibitors. Very few exhibitors come to the World Show with only one horse entered, so it would be safe to say that less than 5 percent of the members show horses at the World Show. You will also find that the majority of the members that show at the World Show also show at the Championship Shows and the Local Shows. They have to qualify the horses as well as amateurs and youth at some AMHA show. So it would be safe to say again that 5 percent or less of the members show their horses.

Remember in 2006 and before, a person could show at the Championship Show and World shows without becoming an AMHA member, but in 2007 every exhibitor has to be a member.

"If at any time it is determined that this horse has exceeded 34 inches in height, this certificate will be voided on the records of the Registry, without refund of fee."

How many AMHA members think the rules, all of them, should be followed? I for one believe this. Should we enforce the statements in our Articles of Incorporation that AMHA promised to uphold, that was the basis for the Secretary of the State of Texas allowing the Association to have a not for profit status.

These Articles that AMHA agreed to are for the purpose to, "Aid and encourage the breeding, exhibiting, use and pepetuation of the Miniature Horses: Promoting and coordinating Miniature Horse show activities, promote and encourage exhibition of Miniature Horses in open classes; etc." The forward statement of AMHA defines that any horse that exceeds 34 inches in height is NOT a Miniature Horse and is not eligible for registration.

Therefore it is very easy to understand that a 1/4 inch allowance for any horse during protest or for any reason that would cause the official measurement to exceed 34 inches in height at the base of the last hairs of the mane is in conflict with the registration statement on the certificate, the Articles of Incorporation, the Standard of Perfection and several other bylaws and rules.

Another way to look at this issue is that AMHA has a contract with each and every member. Members when signing the membership application agree to, Article IV of the bylaws, "Membership shall be open to all persons who subscribe to the objects of the American Miniature Horse Association, agree to abide by its rules and regulations, and who apply for membership.

The association prints an Official Rule Book that is given to the member each year informing them of the rules and regulations they have agreed to follow. This rule book also informs members of disciplinary procedures that can be used to reprimand, find, suspend or expel in accordance with such rules and regulations as the membership may from time to time adopt.

When I joined AMHA, I like the statement in the Standard of Perfection that the breed objective was the smallest possible perfect horse, and that preference in judging shall be given the smaller horses when other characteristics were approximately equal. This statement and the rules and regulations, especially the guarantee that no AMHA horse would exceed 34 inches in height and be allowed to be registered with the Association was exactly the reason I gave AMHA my money for membership dues, registering my foals, and bringing my horses to permanent registration status. I sold my horses to new people and encouraged them to become members of AMHA because of the promises AMHA made to me when I became a member. I can no longer do this because the directors decision to pass a protest measurement policy allowing a horse to officailly measure 34 1/4 inches tall and still maintain it's AMHA registration violates their contract with me as a member. All AMHA statements in the Rule Book on the website and anywhere else that states that an AMHA Miniature Horse must not exceed 34 inches in height is a fraud and false advertising.

 

[Genie]

I appreciate all the "homework" McBunz has done on the subject, and I especially agree 100% with the last post by McBunz.

As I said earlier, I wish I could stop looking at this thread but when I am looking at at horse measuring 34 1/4 inches and AMHA officials saying "okay, that's fine"...............................It's not fine, and if that's the way it is going to be then they can send back the papers I turned in on one of my horses.

I too am a life time member of AMHA and want them to be the best registry for Miniature Horses with the highest profile and reputation for doing things right.

It boggles my mind that "show people" who are showing at the highest levels feel that there should be "leeway" that takes an "A" horse over the prescribed height of 34 inches at certain times.

If a horse is required to be 34 inches for this registry then that should be the end of the discussion instead of saying that these show horses can't stand properly for measuring or making excuses about the competence of the people who do the measuring.

If the leeway is allowed so horses can be over 34 inches in certain instances, then we should just forget about handing papers back when a horse goes over the 34 inch requirement.

Apparantly it doesn't matter, and if my horse is over and for some reason I am challenged, I will just say that " most days when the sun is shining, and people aren't too close, and the horse isn't tense, and the horse isn't cold, it's 34 inches. Just today, it's not!!!"

 

[tagalong]

*sorry to postho, everyone - but sometimes that is just thw way the conversation flows - combined with when you are online*

That ^^ post of yours above is fair and informative, McBunz... and much more in keeping with the subject at hand. I may not agree 100% with all your points - but they were well stated. Thank you.

Something I can add show-wise is that horse show attendance is down for many breeds. The very popular "big" horse show that a club I belong to puts on each July only had half the entries this year - gas prices being the major consideration.

Anyhoo...

This is a group of genuinely concerned AMHA members who stepped up to the plate to TRY to not only point out LEGITIMATE concerns, but to make an honest effort,via specified procedures, to convince an organization(in this case, AMHA)to adhere to its OWN standards. If mistakes in approach have been made(though I really haven't seen any, and I am more critical than most)-- they were honest mistakes--yet some of you are delighting in using NASTINESS, RUDE sarcasm, patronizing attitudes, and inflammatory 'buzzwords' of invalid comparison in your determination to belittle this honest effort.

Margot - you do not have to be a member of C.A.R.E. to care - as I said earlier. Most of us are very concerned and have said so. Patronizing attitudes, rudeness, sarcasm and such have been in evidence all over this thread - yes, even from C.A.R.E. members. I realize that we should not respond in kind - but I am only human and tend to respond to what I see/feel. As we all tend to do.

Where has anyone belittled this effort? Nowhere. Round and round we go.

Asking questions is not belittling. Having a slightly different view on things or sharing a different concern is not belittling. It is part of the discussion and having disdain or outright contempt at times for the concerns of fellow AMHA members as a few C.A.R.E. members have is counter-productive. Your opinion is that there has been no drama and nothing Over The Top in these threads. Some of us disagree. So be it.

; one of you, presumably older, seems determined to convince us all that YOU are THE 'voice of reason',yet you use inflammatory comparisons that should be beneath your dignity--and you seem absolutely DETERMINED to 'have the last word'-to what end? It is my hope and belief that the response of thoughtful readers here will be recognition that in the main, your posts really do NOT offer much of anything constructive on this subject.

I do not want the last word, Margot - by any means - just taking part in the discussion. I am not The Voice Of Reason *snort* and never claimed to be... just another concerned AMHA member. Contrary to what you say - all posts are a part of the discussion. All input should be valuable from all members - and yet again - with those ^^^ comments you seem to be dismissive of the concerns of others.... and somewhat insulting as well. What exactly are the inflammatory conparisons that should be beneath my dignity? *confused*

These discussions are NOT some sort of 'contest', where those who show are somehow considered to be 'more important' or have 'more valid opinions, as members, than those who don't! I have been on BOTH sides of the bar as far as showing goes--I have shown horses since the mid-70s in breed rings--and was a competitor in other horse venues much before that... and now, I seldom if ever will again breed show...does that make my thoughts invalid?

Where did I ever say that those who show were more important? I never have. I did question that 5% figure - as it appeared to be merely another poster's opinion/guess. I have disagreed with comments from some who do not show who have stated that all horses should be trained and be calm during stressful measuring situations such as the protests in question. They said it with such conviction - and yet not having been in that situation, can they really appreciate that atmosphere/tension? It was a fair point of discussion. Or so one would think...

I can hardly believe that such would be ALLOWED to happen at any properly-run show!

Sadly - one year our stalls were just down the way from where some protest measurements were done at Nationals (not Worlds then) ... and yes, it was a zoo. Trainers crowding around, officials, owners... and the horses suffered for it.

This would for awhile NOT be easy; once you have let some people believe that the rules really DON'T apply to them, those kind of people can and will be very 'difficult', to put it kindly. But you know what? It can and will work, IF and WHEN there is the DETERMINATION/"GRIT" on the part of the organization to make it so!

Agreed. All too often some exhibitors have used the protests to get back at someone... often in response to a legit protest where said trainer was caught out. That kind of crap needs to get hammered on.

Can a horse occasionally vary by a quarter inch? Yes, I'd say it can, but the three measurement average in the Rulebook already allows for that--and I think anyone who has been around and tried to measure accurately would acknowledge that the problems lie in 'much' greater overages than that!

Again we are in agreement. As I said upthread - I can understand the reasoning behind the 1/4" protest allowance... and yet such things should be set in cement at the first measuring and then there would be no need of any protests. No wiggle room. No way to get that 35" (or bigger) horse measured in - no matter what trainer tricks are used.

I believe that an honest accomodation of ALL qualified members to vote on important issues will be the only way to rebuild confidence in and support of AMHA(and I'd say the same should apply to AMHR.)

Exactly right. I have never said otherwise...

 

[Tango]

Back to the original topic - ANYTIME a measurement over 34 inches is allowed in conjuction with AMHA for ANY reason is a violation of the Standard that AMHA was founded on, PERIOD! Legal action could be taken against AMHA by ANY member (and should be) if this decision is ratified. And according to AMHA's own Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, AMHA would not win.

Nikki

 

[maestoso]

Well that's the answer then isn't it. Legal action. So which of you will begin the process? I will keep my eyes and ears open for the updates.

 

[Tango]

Well Matt, no. Legal action isn't the answer and shouldn't have to be. The answer is to follow established procedure to begin with and enforce it, not sidestep around it. By changing the maximum protest height to 34 1/4 inches, a precedent is set. In a few years time, others will want to up it to 34 1/2 inches and up we go. I am sure that people thought when 34 inches was established as the maximum height thirty years ago that they would never see the day when it would be acceptable for it to be over 34 inches. Well here we are.

Nikki

 

[rabbitsfizz]

Lisa, the horses are not nor have they ever been, 34" and under.

They have always been up to 36" and under, that is the whole reason for the measuring to the last hair of the mane thing that people go on about every now and again!! (

)

So this hoo-haa is really because, on top of the "base of the withers" (so now we have horse up to possibly 37") the quarter inch is the last straw!!

If we want a "B" division (up to 38") there is the AMHR (where you can get a 40" Shetland under 38", apparently!!)

The facts have been laid out, the BOD is in breach of the original contract...this is not legal...who is going to point this out to them (I have no problem doing it personally but am also happy to add my signature to a carefully thought out letter to the effect)