What is YOUR standard of perfection

[MiLo Minis]

If you are going to further define the breed standard as horse instead of pony, which type of horse? There is so much variation out there in horses too. Also, Hackneys are more than ponies. There are also Hackney horses. I really don't think you could narrow down the breed standard much more without picking a specific type of horse and that would upset a lot of people. Also, there are always going to be people who do not like the look that is popular in the show ring. As others have said this is something that takes place in other breeds as well such as Quarter horses, Arabians, and Shetlands. If I ever get into breeding again it will probably be with more the classic Shetland type whether they be registered as miniatures and/or ponies.

Our horses have always been known as Miniature Horses not ponies so I don't think it is out of line to ask for a definition of what we are breeding for to describe a more horse type. I know that there are Hackney horses out there but I highly doubt you will EVER get one of them bred down far enough to compete in the Miniature show ring although I do know there WILL be people that try to get them qualified

Really, whats to stop them? If we allow 44" horses in now and call them 38" or under eventually when all the horses in the show ring are 44" we aren't that far from allowing a 14.3 hand horse in are we? Seriously, people are saying how much the Miniature Horse has improved over the years and how our National Champion is such a nicer animal now than they were back when they were HONESTLY measured at 34" or whatever - its like comparing apples to oranges.

The Shetland in our same rule book has very completely identified what they prefer to see in the way of perfection. I don't see why the Miniature Horse can not be described as accurately with a bent towards describing a horse rather than a pony. As in any breed you can have a 'form follows function' clause allowing for variety in type to a certain extent.

 

[bingo]

No, Bingo... the Shetland isn't "immune" to poor breeding or conformation but the VAST majority is better quality compared to the VAST majority of miniatures!

I cruise the horsestudbook.com website daily and see what is being registered... the majority of the Shetlands are decent quality, free from huge glaring conformational issues.... while the majority of the Minis are dwarfy weird fuzzy things...

Andrea

Well lets be honest part of that is simply due to the sheer numbers of minis registered compared to ponies. We all know it is the minis that are the major $ when it comes to registration for our registry.

So I am sure if you compared them percentage wise that way it would be pretty simiular.

I also feel that really the horsestudbook.com is not the best way to decide the quality of any breed as the photos submitted for registration are not always the best to begin with depending on time of year taken, amount of help available while taking pictures as well as the distortion that can occur in the process of getting them on the papers and into the system.

Of course everyone seems to feel that their breed of choice is so much better then someone else's which is why I guess it is their breed of choice

And many times in life breeds of choice can change so what someone once thought was the best may not be the best for them forever.

There is not a breed out there that does not have their fair share of horses with glaring conformation faults, being bred for color be it solid or multi, being bred for what is on paper or just being bred in the hopes of making a buck. It is not a mini only problem nor a shetland only problem. It doesnt matter if you are talking about our registry, or QH, Friesians,T/B. Arabs whatever the breed you will find poor quality.

 

[dreaminmini]

Some organizations emphasize breeding of miniatures with horse characteristics, others encourage minis to retain pony characteristics.[8]

The AMHA standard suggests that if a person were to see a photograph of a miniature horse, without any size reference, it would be identical in characteristics, conformation, and proportion to a full-sized horse.[1]

According to the AMHR, a "Miniature should be a small, sound, well-balanced horse and should give the impression of strength, agility and alertness. A Miniature should be eager and friendly but not skittish in disposition."[7]

(Above is quoted from Wikipedia.)

I find this leaves a lot open to interpretation. But both registries make it clear in my opinion that they want the miniature horse to look like a horse with horse like characteristics.

Being very new to miniatures, I hesitated before answering this thread, not wanting to sound stupid. But, I feel that when I chose to buy a miniature horse with the intentions of training it to drive, I did choose a miniature horse because that is the look and temperament I wanted. I did not choose to buy a Hackney Pony/Horse or a Modern Shetland or an Arabian Horse. I like the Miniature Horse as it's name is what it is. I am not saying anything against these other breeds which are all quite fine. But why dilute one breed's characteristics with anothers until one day we will find that it has just become a melting pot with no clear defining characteristics or anything such that makes it remarkable or different from another breed or have it disappear altogether.

 

[Jill]

Looking back at the last 5 or so years' AMHR National Grands are right in line with "my" standard of perfection

 

[MiLo Minis]

"The Hackney horse has a well-shaped head, sometimes with a slightly convex profile. Their eyes are expressive and generous in size. Their ears are cleanly formed, usually sized proportionately to their head. The neck is carried arched and upright, arising high from the top of the withers. The chest is broad and well-defined, the shoulder is powerful, long and gently sloping. The horses have compact backs, muscular, level croups, and powerful hindquarters. Their ribs are well-sprung. The tail is set high and carried high naturally. The legs are strong with broad, clean joints, long forearms and gaskins, with hocks low, and pasterns medium in length, and are attached to round, tough hooves. The breed is known for its soundness and enjoyable gaits."

"The Hackney pony may not be above 14.2 hands (hh) and usually range between 12 and 14 hh. It should have true pony characteristics, and should not be a scaled down version of the Hackney Horse. The pony should have a small pony head, carried high, with alert and pricked ears and large, intelligent eyes. The neck should be muscular, arched, and carried proudly. They should have powerful shoulders, a compact back, and a light frame. The legs are strong with good joints, but the bone is usually fine. The feet are very hard, and are usually allowed to grow long in the toe to accentuate the action of the pony. The tail is often set and is carried high. They usually have even more exaggerated action than the Hackney horse, knees rising as high as possible and hocks coming right under the body. The action should be fluid, spectacular, and energetic."

These decriptions are taken from Wikipedia. IF the Hackney registry can define its two divisions so clearly making one a pony and one a horse why can our Registry not define Miniature Horses to be clearly horse-like in looks keeping it separate from the Pony divisions? IF this isn't done than there eventually will be no Miniature Horse, we will just be a smaller height division of Shetlands. IF a smaller division of Shetlands is desired why not create one in that division of the registry and have them show at the Pony shows NOT at the Miniature Horse shows. This would eliminate the problem of having oversized Moderns competing against our Miniatures as they would not be acceptable in conformation let alone size.

History repeats itself?? Yes the Hackney has been useful in forming the Shetland and Miniature Horses we have today by adding their refinement to our breeds but we need to be careful that we don't follow in the footsteps of the Shetland by becoming an entirely different breed such as the Modern Shetlands did or we will be looking at having class divisions of Miniature Horses - Modern and Classic.

 

[Erica]

I haven't read this thread entriely just a quick skim.....

One of the things about the miniature horse I love, is that I can personally own, bred, show, promote, advertise, love, feed, look at .......the TYPE of miniature horse I want.

Just because the next farm down the road prefers something different, doesn't mean I technically have to follow suit.

Of course my goal is to continually improve and produce horses that are either able to hold their own in the show ring and hold their marketablity......but also to keep producing those horses that I like, as it's me at 5:30 having to get up to feed them before work and me up at the barn at 1am clipping for the next show....with as much time and effort as we put into each of our programs you have to have/produce the type of horses you like.

 

[midnight star stables]

Now I do agree with Milo on this one, on that there should be a way to tell miniature horses apart from other small breeds; but it would be very very hard.

Miniatures are a hieght breed and there are many types and styles within. And type is just that - a type.

I personally love the shetland look, but I am overall a miniature horse person. I don't mind "sharing" our breed with other small horses. But that's it, they have to be SMALL. Okay, 39-40" ponies that get in, okay, usually a hoof trim can help in this area.... But I just don't want 43", 44", 45", + ponies (when they ARE standing square) in our miniature breed. Plain and simple.

Change is great! But lets be hoset about it.

 

[MiLo Minis]

Now I do agree with Milo on this one, on that there should be a way to tell miniature horses apart from other small breeds; but it would be very very hard.

Miniatures are a hieght breed and there are many types and styles within. And type is just that - a type.

Thanks for your support Des but I really don't think it would be all that difficult to define that we are looking for a HORSE in Miniature and not a pony type and yet still have diversity of type in our breed. There are many attributes besides height that separate horse breeds from pony breeds.

I personally love the shetland look, but I am overall a miniature horse person. I don't mind "sharing" our breed with other small horses. But that's it, they have to be SMALL. Okay, 39-40" ponies that get in, okay, usually a hoof trim can help in this area.... But I just don't want 43", 44", 45", + ponies (when they ARE standing square) in our miniature breed. Plain and simple.

Change is great! But lets be hoset about it.

Ponies that size in our show ring are what will make our registry a laughingstock with the rest of the equine world.

 

[Jill]

Ponies that size in our show ring are what will make our registry a laughingstock with the rest of the equine world.

Unfortunately, I think there are some other issues that make this the case to much fo the other equine world already.

 

[bingo]

Ponies that size in our show ring are what will make our registry a laughingstock with the rest of the equine world.

Unfortunately, I think there are some other issues that make this the case to much fo the other equine world already.

Jill I could not agree more!

 

[MiLo Minis]

Lori, I seen this trend of Shetland/Hackney types in AMHR for years now and I feel it is gaining popularity fast.. I am not against it as I love the looks of those flashy ponies.

You may want to consider AMHA registered Miniature Horses.. I threw a major fit (as you all may know

.. LOL!) when the AMHA Standard Of Perfection was messed with by allowing taller horses in (with measuring at base of withers - or middle of back so to say...). I am glad it was rescinded because I truly feel it would of cause drastic change in the AMHA Miniature.. in going the way AMHR is..

The TWO Registries are GREAT because it allows us to choose what we like in Miniature Horses... the smaller `horse in miniature` or the "taller flashy pony` styles..

Unfortunately, although I like the way the AMHA has defined that they want their Miniature Horses to LOOK LIKE HORSES IN MINIATURE, I don't like the height of them. I prefer the taller flashy HORSE look in Miniature.

If you take a look at my website you will see that the majority of my horses are B size and I like them that way - big beautiful B size Miniature HORSES! If I wanted a flashy pony I would get myself a Modern Shetland or Hackney Pony.

 

[midnight star stables]

Shetlands split, maybe miniatures will have to too. Foundation, Classic, Mordern Pleasure, Mordern... Or maybe Stock, QH, Arabian, TB, Hackney.... What do you think?

 

[bingo]

Well one has to remember that there is several different thoughts as to what a shetland look is. On this fourm alone their is currently a post about a mini who is thought to look like a Modern Shetland he is a beautiful mini no doubt but to my eye nothing at all shetland about him let alone Mondern Shetland.

I think sometimes people see a horse that is refined and leggy and call it a shetland type when in fact it truly is a refined leggy miniature horse type.

 

[willowoodstables]

If anyone can get me a genetics printout on a miniature that tells me it is 100% HORSE than I will have to agree that a mini is a horse. Other than that it is a pony.

My ideal mini is long hingy-necked, sloped shoulder, dippy back, long hip, level croup, long legged, with a longer fetlock..om my I just described a HACKNEY...AND an Arab, Saddlebred etc..your finer driving machines IMHO. So if you have an ideal, breed or shop for it, but we really shouldn't poopoo the trends, unless we go backward towards dwarves!

If I could get these in mini size, I'd have a 100.

The pony above really didn't fit the mold-trend of the newer hackney BUT seems like my breeding program still worked, hence the World Championship at Louisville.

Kim

 

[Marty]

One of the things about the miniature horse I love, is that I can personally own, bred, show, promote, advertise, love, feed, look at .......the TYPE of miniature horse I want.

Just because the next farm down the road prefers something different, doesn't mean I technically have to follow suit.

Good words from Erica. With Miniatures there are quite a few bandwagons available to jump on if you choose,. from Arabian, to Draft, and everything in between. All depends on what style and type that suits you. You can still improve your quality at your farm with your "style" of horse without loosing the type that you prefer.

 

[willowoodstables]

Lori,

Wikpedia is not a great source of info as anyone can add to it.

Try American Hackney Society for true definitions. Or here Introducing the Hackney

Going more on what Erica said, here is a blurb on the Hackney site written by Karen Nowak regarding Hackney Horses, but I think that you can insert any breed here.

Few breeds are static and stop developing. With any breed, including human beings, there is rarely a point where they can be said to have reached their full potential. The same can be said of the Hackney! Breeding of successful show horses has established a link between conformation and the predisposition to step high

Not on my high hackney, but after 30+ years I have seen trends that I didn't like, so I stuck with my ideal, and it hasn't hurt me in the ring. Granted there I times when I THOUGHT I should win, but really it is ONE man's opinion on that day. I don't breed minis, but I shop minis, and as in my post above, I WANT mine to look like that.

Kim

 

[MiLo Minis]

Those certainly are beautiful horses you have pictured here Kim and IF all 100 of your Saddlebred, Hackney Horse types were TRULY UNDER 38" they would be welcome in our registry!

Which brings us full circle to Minimor's comment that perhaps it isn't the breed standard that needs changed but that our stewards need to be held accountable for upholding our rules and regulations. .

What I see is that the Miniature Horse is being gradually undermined by OVERSIZE horses being allowed in and that is the responsibility of our stewards. If a horse is found to be oversize by a substantial amount he loses his papers BUT NOTHING IS DONE ABOUT THE STEWARD THAT MEASURED THE HORSE ORIGINALLY!!!

I have been a horseperson all my life and I will be the first one to say that our Miniatures are really only very small ponies but my goal in breeding them has always been to achieve as close to a horse look as possible AND UNDER 38" as that is what our breed was intended to be

If there were the threat of losing one's license and a substantial fine we would not be seeing these huge ponies in our show rings. I have no desire to see dwarfs shown either and have been very careful to try not to introduce that into my herd either. I have always bred, and will continue to breed, what is my taste in Miniature. There was a day when I was the only one or one of 2 or 3 that showed in the B classes. I am happy to say that now the competition is much stiffer and I am glad for it BUT my horses have ALWAYS been honestly 38" or under. IF they measure over they are no longer Miniatures and they don't show. I too will stick to my ideals but I would like to see some support from our registry in the manner of sticking to our rules!

 

[mininik]

Are you kidding me? Soo, where would one find this example of "perfect HORSE conformation?" Arabians, Quarter Horses, Paints, etc. are mostly being bred to specialize in events the last time I checked. There is a general standard, sure, and then there are a bunch of interpretations for what best competes in Halter, Dressage, Western Pleasure, Reining, Hunter Pleasure, Hunters, Jumpers, Cross Country, English Pleasure, Park, etc. Beyond that, who's to say what breed of HORSE the Miniature Horse should follow? If Hackney Ponies are out (because you don't think they fit the standard), what about Saddlebred looking Miniatures? Oh wait, she wants to breed "Quarter Horse type," while that breeder prefers "Arabians in Miniature" and this one "Miniature Warmbloods." But sorry! You don't fit in because you prefer "Hackney Ponies in Miniature," even though this breeder's "Quarter Horse type" looks awfully similar to some poorly bred Welsh Second A Ponies, and this breeder's "Arabian type" more closely resembles a DWARF. Of course, let's not forget that in each of those prior examples there will be many variations depending upon what type of Quarter Horse, Arabian, Saddlebred or Warmblood the individual prefers. I also don't think we should forget that by definition, a pony is simply a horse under 14.2h. Finally, I am curious what Miniature Horses (read: PONIES) you really think would be left standing in the ring if they were judged as "horses" according to their supposed type? Your's?

An Arabian winning Park at Nationals:

http://www.usef.org/images/wir/arabian_nationals_2004_2.jpg

An Arabian winning Western Pleasure at Nationals:

http://www.rickgaulttraining.com/images/US...3_Verroneau.jpg

Distinctly Arabian, but vastly different in type.

 

[The Simple Life Farm]

However, on the part about mini people judging ponies: Lee Crutchfield is judging Congress this year. He’s pretty much a mini-guy.

I would want a Shetland judge at Congress. Same as a mini judge at Nationals. If we pay that much money, we need and deserve a judge that is very versed in the breed.

From someone that is CONSIDERING a Shetland, I think the 2 ought to be seperated. Since a shetland is a "breed" horse, how can it be registered as a "miniature horse"? A miniature horse can not be registered as a Shetland. This has always confused me, can anyone explain this?

 

[Erica]

From someone that is CONSIDERING a Shetland, I think the 2 ought to be seperated. Since a shetland is a "breed" horse, how can it be registered as a "miniature horse"? A miniature horse can not be registered as a Shetland. This has always confused me, can anyone explain this?

Minis are a HEIGHT breed.............so anything measuring in our height requirments can technically be registered as a miniature (or qualify) - or course with AMHR they have closed hardship for all except AMHA or ASPC horses.