What is YOUR standard of perfection

[MiLo Minis]

As long as this thread is, you can be sure I've missed some posts. You know, the eyes can kind of glaze over... Aren't there steps in place to protest when horses appear way too tall? Is it a matter of needing new rules, or a matter of people needing to put them to use?

Again, showing against 40" horses is just not something that has happened me or my horses. I'm happy with what I have, have done well, and I look to add some AMHR/ASPC blood at some point because I DO like the look I see in many of these animals.

You are forgiven for not having read the entire thread Jill

, it has gotten rather long.

But the fact that it has tells me that many people do care, one way or the other, about this very subject.

It would be great if everyone did take a stand, use their right to protest and then we wouldn't be having this discussion BUT a lot of people are afraid to do so because they have heard of the threats issued by persons that have had their horses protested or they don't want to be thought of as trouble makers or of having a case of "sour grapes"

I personally don't feel that way and am not afraid to stand up for my convictions and I can tell you for a fact that there are 40" and bigger horses being shown in our show rings.

I too like the look of many of the ASPC/AMHR double registered horses, preferably the Classics, there are also some I don't like the look of at all. The big thing you have to remember though is that when you bring in the "look" you also bring in the temperament.

 

[crponies]

I am a little confused at how any new Hackneys could possibly be added to the registry and therefore show to start with. AMHR is closed except to AMHA (which would mean a Hackney 34" or under), ASPC (which could have some Hackney but would not be a Hackney), or Falabella (definitely not Hackney). How are these "Hackneys" getting into the registry?

Also, speaking of temperaments, I watched some of the World show online last year and saw some very hot miniatures. I don't see why you are so concerned with introducing hot temperaments when they are already there!

I do think that if the registries are going to have height limits, they need to strictly enforce this in the show ring.

Edited to add: I didn't realize that ASPR are actually able to be hardshipped into AMHR as well so that opens the door to a little more Hackney blood.

 

[The Simple Life Farm]

OK>>>>>

I have a question that is concerning me.

I have read all of this thread. From what I gather, the taller horses are being placed over the smaller?

That said... I have a 29" mare that I am taking to Nationals. I was wanting to show her only in the Ammy Jr Mare class , not the open class (thinking I would not even have a chance against a trainer). In the Ammy class, it is only a 34" and under class, so I am starting to think my very correct 29" mini would not even have a chance. So does that mean I should show her in the Open 30" and under? At least she would be showing against horses more her size, even though most exhibitors may be trainers. This is a very serious concern of mine. After reading all this, I was starting to think that maybe I shouldn't ever show her again. What are your thoughts?

 

[mininik]

Don't forget there are "professional Amateurs," too, who are just as awesome as the trainers.

I would show the mare in both classes if I was going to bother taking her all the way to Nationals/Worlds. You never know what the judges will see on a given day. Just because your mare is very correct, doesn't mean there won't be another mare (taller or shorter) who the judges see as more correct somehow, or as relatively equal, but your mare has a bad showing.

 

[Erica]

I would show the mare in both classes as well

#1 as they are TWO different sets of judges, who may or may not have different opinions

#2 it's two different days, horses are just like people they have their bad days along with the good, since you are there show her in both, one day she may be having an "off" day as far as showing and another she may be completely "on"

#3 while the trainers will be showing in the open classes, I would venture to guess the number of horses in that class will be a lower amount than the amount in the ammy jr mares under class (last year if I remember correctly that class had 67 horses in it)

.........and that ammy jr mares class will be for horses 33" under (for the "unders" anyway) as it's for weanlings - two year old, cut off for two year olds to be "unders" is 33"

 

[strass]

Don't forget there are "professional Amateurs," too

I would show the mare in both classes as well

???Coincidence???

Love 'ya Kiddo.

A tiny Hackney Pony is certainly not what I have in mind when I think of a Miniature Horse

See…and it keeps coming back to this. I don't like Hackneys either (for my own personal tastes alone). However, they have every right to be here because we can’t agree to close our registry. While this is, as Jill correctly identified it "another thread about measuring" it seems obvious that there is more than measuring under the surface.

Nobody is going to argue that we should break our own height limit rule. That's a rule that we as a membership agreed on. There's not much to discuss here. It only takes one person to propose a rule change to geld any steward who blatantly breaks the rules. It’s NOT rocket science. Nevertheless, every few posts you keep mentioning Hacks and how much you dislike them.

I am not on an anti Hackney crusade and I did try to make that clear in my thread

Perhaps you should try again. I agree with Jill that it seems you have some personal vendetta involved here.

HOWEVER, giving you the benefit of the doubt: Here’s an idea…Change the protesting to $50 instead of $100. (A hundred is a steep price to pay for trying to uphold the rules.) Then, allow ANY horse signed up to show in ANY division or class at ANY sanctioned show to be protested by ANYbody else who is a card carrying member of AMHR/ASPC/ASPR, while said animal in question and protesting member are still on the show grounds. (Limiting those who can protest to only those who have shown against the animal in question stops people from protesting because they don’t want to be seen as sore losers.) (That also means that you could even protest the Mini papers on a Shetland that was showing in ASPC classes.)

After thoughts:

How about if you have 3 horses that you show or own that are protested on height successfully, you lose your membership for one year.

Just to keep things fair and from getting out of hand, how about if you protest 3 in a row that you lose the protest on: You lose your membership for a year.

 

[mininik]

I hope you don't think I meant any disrespect with my professional Amateur comment, strass, because I honestly didn't. In fact, not only do I wish I could still show as an Amateur, I also wish I was good enough to be considered "professional" at it.

Psst... and I really like your protest idea.

 

[bingo]

. While this is, as Jill correctly identified it "another thread about measuring" it seems obvious that there is more than measuring under the surface.

Nobody is going to argue that we should break our own height limit rule. That's a rule that we as a membership agreed on. There's not much to discuss here. It only takes one person to propose a rule change to geld any steward who blatantly breaks the rules. It’s NOT rocket science. Nevertheless, every few posts you keep mentioning Hacks and how much you dislike them.

I am not on an anti Hackney crusade and I did try to make that clear in my thread

Perhaps you should try again. I agree with Jill that it seems you have some personal vendetta involved here.

HOWEVER, giving you the benefit of the doubt: Here’s an idea…Change the protesting to $50 instead of $100. (A hundred is a steep price to pay for trying to uphold the rules.) Then, allow ANY horse signed up to show in ANY division or class at ANY sanctioned show to be protested by ANYbody else who is a card carrying member of AMHR/ASPC/ASPR, while said animal in question and protesting member are still on the show grounds. (Limiting those who can protest to only those who have shown against the animal in question stops people from protesting because they don’t want to be seen as sore losers.) (That also means that you could even protest the Mini papers on a Shetland that was showing in ASPC classes.)

After thoughts:

How about if you have 3 horses that you show or own that are protested on height successfully, you lose your membership for one year.

Just to keep things fair and from getting out of hand, how about if you protest 3 in a row that you lose the protest on: You lose your membership for a year.

Well there ya go you solved the whole issue in one well thought out post.

 

[strass]

I hope you don't think I meant any disrespect with my professional Amateur comment, strass, because I honestly didn't. In fact, not only do I wish I could still show as an Amateur, I also wish I was good enough to be considered "professional" at it.

Psst... and I really like your protest idea.

Thanks, but I can’t claim that it’s entirely original.

No disrespect found at all. When my trainer is looking for an extra person to show a horse, she will reach across me (in full show attire with my hands open) in order to hand the lead to “random bum off the street” (in tank top and flip flops holding a bottle of booze). I’ve never been accused of being a Pro-Am. That’s a whole other issue that needs to be addressed. And the word in the rulebook “remuneration” needs to be clearly defined so that people understand that it does NOT just refer to money. This is for another discussion at another time. I’m not getting into it just yet.

Well there ya go you solved the whole issue in one well thought out post.

I can’t tell if you’re making fun of me or not. Don’t make me cry in public.

 

[Belinda]

When my trainer is looking for an extra person to show a horse, she will reach across me (in full show attire with my hands open) in order to hand the lead to “random bum off the street” (in tank top and flip flops holding a bottle of booze).

Now Now,,, I could have sworn that Lisa was in full show dress, and had gotten rid of that bottle she was holding for you..

I promise next time I will grab you and let Lisa Rest...

 

[Cedar Ridge Farm]

Kelly@ The Simple Life Farm

I agree with Erica on this. Angelina Bobofina is a nice little mare. I would show her in both classes. You never know what the day is going to be like for you, Angie or the judge.

 

[bingo]

[

Well there ya go you solved the whole issue in one well thought out post.

I can’t tell if you’re making fun of me or not. Don’t make me cry in public.

No not making fun of you at all! You pretty much said it all and left very little to be said afterwards

I do agree with the protest changes you suggested and will be sure to vote for it if I hear the rule change at this years convention heck next years convention!

 

[The Simple Life Farm]

Kelly@ The Simple Life Farm

I agree with Erica on this. Angelina Bobofina is a nice little mare. I would show her in both classes. You never know what the day is going to be like for you, Angie or the judge.

Awwww

Thanks Pegga Sue. That means alot to me since you know the horse.

 

[MiLo Minis]

A tiny Hackney Pony is certainly not what I have in mind when I think of a Miniature Horse

See…and it keeps coming back to this. I don't like Hackneys either (for my own personal tastes alone). However, they have every right to be here because we can’t agree to close our registry. While this is, as Jill correctly identified it "another thread about measuring" it seems obvious that there is more than measuring under the surface.

Nobody is going to argue that we should break our own height limit rule. That's a rule that we as a membership agreed on. There's not much to discuss here. It only takes one person to propose a rule change to geld any steward who blatantly breaks the rules. It’s NOT rocket science. Nevertheless, every few posts you keep mentioning Hacks and how much you dislike them.

I am not on an anti Hackney crusade and I did try to make that clear in my thread

Perhaps you should try again. I agree with Jill that it seems you have some personal vendetta involved here.

HOWEVER, giving you the benefit of the doubt: Here’s an idea…Change the protesting to $50 instead of $100. (A hundred is a steep price to pay for trying to uphold the rules.) Then, allow ANY horse signed up to show in ANY division or class at ANY sanctioned show to be protested by ANYbody else who is a card carrying member of AMHR/ASPC/ASPR, while said animal in question and protesting member are still on the show grounds. (Limiting those who can protest to only those who have shown against the animal in question stops people from protesting because they don’t want to be seen as sore losers.) (That also means that you could even protest the Mini papers on a Shetland that was showing in ASPC classes.)

After thoughts:

How about if you have 3 horses that you show or own that are protested on height successfully, you lose your membership for one year.

Just to keep things fair and from getting out of hand, how about if you protest 3 in a row that you lose the protest on: You lose your membership for a year.

Okay now hold on just a minute here, I can quote you several times in this thread saying you don't like 'em either. Am I not entitled to have my own opinion as well as you?

Why does this have to be a personal vendetta?

This is not about Hackney Ponies at all. It is just that they happen to be the type that I personally have seen being shown that are well over the height limit. I don't think you will find too many horse breeds that are anywhere close to the height limit that they could even think to get them measured in. I don't care if they are Welsh (which I adore), POA, Dartmoor or whatever breed of pony, if they are well over the height limit they should not be in our show rings. It just so happens that the only pony breed that is able to be hardshipped into our registry is the Shetland. The Classics more often come closer to or actually into our height limit and the Moderns with their Hackney blood may well do so some day too but as it stands right now there are people that are rushing things a bit and rather than breeding them down are cheating and getting them measured in illegally. That is why I suggested perhaps a rewrite of our breed standard to eliminate the ponies but after the posts here I realize there are enough in our registry that want the Hackney Pony type and so we have to look at other ways to legitimize things.

There are horrendous things being done to these ponies in order to get them measured in. IF they can't find a steward and judge that need glasses to hardship them, they chop their feet off and fill 'em full of painkillers to get them close enough. They stick needles in their backs to make them shrink! Anyone who condones these practices, by turning a blind eye to the fact that it is indeed happening, needs to wake up. Is this personal to me? YES! For the love of the horses we need to do something to prevent this from happening as much as possible. I am not so naive that I expect to be able to eliminate cheaters - I know the 'human' race too well for that

- but I do feel it is worthwhile trying if it saves at least a few.

Hey now! When you look at it that way you have to think even if I don't like the look of them I do at least care for them

I do like your suggestions but I would draw the line at punishing someone for protesting. I think the loss of their hundred bucks (and yes I think we should leave it at that much to prevent wanton protests - you do get it back when you win) is enough punishment to deter most people. When you consider how many well over the limit horses are getting in now you have to know that there will always be some stewards that would still allow for quite a bit of leeway and that would not be fair to the protester now would it?

Your constructive post is most appreciated!

 

[gvpalominominis]

Good thread with a lot of issues. All I gotta say is if anyone has one of those little Hackneys that trots like a windstorm... I'll write the check today. I'd love to add that action to my breeding program! Of course, I'd breed it to one of those nice little araby heads with the long archy necks.

Its been discussed before, there probably is a need for type divisions for minis... I could have sworn someone said that one of the registries used to have that before? Heck, I'd just be happy for now if both registries would make the measuring point a "STRUCTURE OF THE HORSE" instead of a strand of hair that can fall out or be rubbed off.... but that's a whole 'nother issue that I'm not trying to bring up.

I look at all the different types of horses out there as a candy bowl. You pick out what flavor you personally like and add it to your breeding program to produce what YOU want. If we all liked the same thing... it would be a pretty boring show ring. What in the world would we have to talk about in the stands?!

I'm glad we have a choice to choose from. I've learned in the relatively short time that I've been breeding minis that sometimes you have to sacrafice certain things to gain ground in your end goal. It can set you back a bit, but I believe its worth it. I also know that sometimes your goals change. Soon we will have a closed registry and what is there is all we'll have to choose from that point on. Do what you want... but I'm going to try and take advantage while I can..... just wish I had more $$ to work with.... and more stalls.... and land... and that hay and grain wasn't so expensive........and that my barn help didn't need a day off.

There are different types out there because the miniature horse is evolving, but I'll bet you there is one thing that we can all agree on... if the horse is a beautiful horse... mini, pony or otherwise... its a beautiful horse.

 

[Jill]

There are horrendous things being done to these ponies in order to get them measured in. IF they can't find a steward and judge that need glasses to hardship them, they chop their feet off and fill 'em full of painkillers to get them close enough. They stick needles in their backs to make them shrink! Anyone who condones these practices, by turning a blind eye to the fact that it is indeed happening, needs to wake up. Is this personal to me? YES! For the love of the horses we need to do something to prevent this from happening as much as possible. I am not so naive that I expect to be able to eliminate cheaters - I know the 'human' race too well for that

- but I do feel it is worthwhile trying if it saves at least a few.

Hey now! When you look at it that way you have to think even if I don't like the look of them I do at least care for them

I'm sure there are MANY people who have hardshipped ponies, honestly and humanely, who would take issue with what you're saying.

 

[Leeana]

I believe this thread itself is starting to get silly, i agree this all has something to do with what a happening this past weekend

. We have discussed and duscussed and i have read and read the same thing over and over x10 on this thread and if the point is still not gotting threw

 

[MiLo Minis]

I believe this thread itself is starting to get silly, i agree this all has something to do with what a happening this past weekend

. We have discussed and duscussed and i have read and read the same thing over and over x10 on this thread and if the point is still not gotting threw

It has more to do with what has been happening for quite some time Leeana. This isn't a new thing - people have been cheating to get oversize horses in for a long time and as nothing has really been done about it they are getting more and more blatant. I was trying to keep this as impersonal as I could, and save the girl further embarrassment, by NOT going on about last weekend but if you think you can take away from the issue by saying it is a personal thing, has to do with last weekend, etc etc. I will explain to everyone what you are talking about and perhaps it will clarify things.

I protested a huge, supposedly Foundation Shetland last weekend that was being shown stretched like a Hackney. There was absolutely nothing MINI about it. Only one of the 3 judges requested her to square her horse up, which she couldn't. This isn't the first show I have seen a Shetland of that size showing and, from the sound of things here on the forum, won't be the last. I got my money back - the horse measured well over the limit. A large number of people congratulated me and suggested I use my money to protest her other horses as well. Now if this number of people KNEW her horses were oversize why was no one else protesting them? I was told that her under colt was over and they knew that personally because he/she had measured him themself and yet, there he was out in the show ring as an A on that very day. I was told that she was so worried I would protest her mare that she was going to trim her tight before she went in the ring. As both a farrier and a horse lover this upsets me - why should the horse suffer for a piece of satin? I was also threatened and cursed at for my efforts. I have read time and time again on the forum about measuring problems and I have experienced my fair share of stewards that are somewhat lackadaisical about their duties. If my horse is measured and I am told they are too big then they are too big and they don't show. I have since last weekend been flooded with emails telling me of all kinds of wicked things done to horses to get them in. Is this a personal vendetta? Certainly not against any one person but yes I suppose it could be considered a vendetta against all cheaters that torture their horses to win a piece of satin.

You all should also know that I have shown against hundreds of Shetlands that DIDN'T measure over or not by too far at least

and have never protested any of them before but there are lines that just shouldn't be crossed.

I would like to make a change in our rules that will help and wanted to hear opinions from others as to what might work. Making it "just another measuring thread" would have gotten the reaction it has here anyway, tackling it from another angle seemed the thing to do. I have gotten some very constructive suggestions from several of the people that have replied so it was worth it to me.

Thank you!!!

 

[bingo]

well I would like to know how you are so sure you have shown under hundreds of shetlands that were only a little bit over as you claim? Have you measured them all? Some of them may have actual withers allowing a taller horse to honestly compete?

Are you saying the horse this weekend was over 6 inches out of class as implied in a earlier thread by you?

There is no rule that says horses can not stand stretched only that a judge *may* ask you to square. You can show your horse to your best advantage and Hackneys surely are not the only horses that show stretched.

Either way the bottom line is there is rules in place for this type of thing. If people choose to not feel passionate enough about it to actually use the rules in place that is not the registries responsibility. How would making new or more rules help if people don't use the ones we currently have?

 

[MiLo Minis]

well I would like to know how you are so sure you have shown under hundreds of shetlands that were only a little bit over as you claim? Have you measured them all? Some of them may have actual withers allowing a taller horse to honestly compete?

Are you saying the horse this weekend was over 6 inches out of class as implied in a earlier thread by you?

There is no rule that says horses can not stand stretched only that a judge *may* ask you to square. You can show your horse to your best advantage and Hackneys surely are not the only horses that show stretched.

Either way the bottom line is there is rules in place for this type of thing. If people choose to not feel passionate enough about it to actually use the rules in place that is not the registries responsibility. How would making new or more rules help if people don't use the ones we currently have?

See now I have another idea for how to attack this thing - perhaps it should be worded that "Miniatures should be shown stood square. The judge at his or her discretion may ask to have the horse stand square, which means that all 4 feet are flat on the ground and at least one front and one rear cannon bone perpendicular to the ground." That last bit would be for the people that just don't get that we are not showing Shetlands or Hackneys. As it is now written it is only PREFERRED that the horse be stood square.

Obviously the rules as they are now written allow for people to use these kind of cruelties to cheat. I do feel that it is the registries responsibility to do as much as possible to prevent cheating as I am sure they do too otherwise why do we bother to have stewards at our shows as DEMANDED by the registry? Think of the money shows could save by not bothering with a steward to uphold the rules.