Quantcast

AMHA bylaws changes

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

Dontworrybeappy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
1,176
Reaction score
22
Location
Norco, CA
all of them can be found here: bylaws changes

these were the most interesting to me...

Article XI, New Section 4 and 4-A, Registration Certificates, page 25 765

Submitted by: Richard Sievert

Add New Section as below and renumber accordingly

Premier (this term may be changed if the committee agrees that it should be)

To qualify for a Premier Certificate, a five (5) plus miniature horse must meet all requirements for Permanent Registration and will then (at owner’s option) be measured by three (3) AMHA Certified Measurers. All three (3) measurers must individually measure and record their measurements. All measurements nine (9) are to be taken at the same place and time. All nine (9) of the measurements will be averaged after eliminating the highest and lowest measurement. If the horse then qualifies; it will receive a “Premier” Registration Certificate. The horse must also have a microchip implanted and that number reported by each measurer.

Add New Section 4-A

The Premium Certificate will be the final measurement ever required for this horse.

Rationale: This will provide a certified, permanent height and the horse will not have to be measured again. Further the microchip will provide immediate and accurate identification. This does not protect the horse from height protest.

Article XI, Section 4, Permanent Registration, page 25 766

Submitted by: Julie Miller

Change as below:

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, measured at the base of the withers last hairs of the mane while standing squarely on a level surface, and have met all the requirements of the Association.

Article XI, Section 4, Permanent Registration, page 25 767

Submitted by: Julie Miller

Change as below:

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, measured at the base of the highest point of the withers last hairs of the mane while standing squarely on a level surface, and have met all the requirements of the Association.

Article XI, Section 6, Breed Name and Size, page 25

Add as follows:

Also exempt will be those horses born prior to 2015 who will be considered American Miniature Horses with all breeding and showing rights, provided they measure 34” or less when measured at the last hair of the mane.

Note: The two rules above need to be voted on as a package. If passed, the above Bylaw will change the following:

GR-020, Height Verification, page 70

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.

The show age of the horse is determined from January 1 preceding its birthday.

Replace with:

All horses will be measured at the highest point of the withers to determine their height division at shows. Horses born before 2015 who exceed 34 inches when measured at the highest point of the withers will be eligible to show in the tallest height division for its class provided it does not exceed 34 inches when measured at the base of the last hair of the mane.

CL-000, Standard of Perfection, page 85

SIZE: Must measure not more than 34 inches at the base of the last hairs of the mane.

Replace with:

Must measure not more than 34 inches at the highest point of the withers. (Exception: Horses born prior to 2015 must measure not more than 34 inches at the base of the last hair of the mane.)

CL-005-C, Show Qualifications, Height, page 86

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.

Replace with:

For the purpose of determining whether a horse’s height is cause for disqualification, horses will be measured at the highest point of the withers. (Exception: Horses porn prior to 2015 will be measured at the base of the last hair of the mane.)

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

The show age of the horse is determined from January 1 preceding its birthday
 

Irish Hills Farm

Irish Hills Farm
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
4,937
Reaction score
0
Location
Baxter, TN
I'm not sure about that Mary Lou

Article XI, Section 4, Permanent Registration, page 25 766Submitted by: Julie Miller

Change as below:

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, measured at the base of the withers last hairs of the mane while standing squarely on a level surface, and have met all the requirements of the Association.
Oh and my 2 cents on the "premier certificate" what a joke. Please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Reignmaker Miniatures

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
3,442
Reaction score
521
Location
British Columbia
I don't usually comment on the measuring rule because better minds than mine are trying to work it out but.... I can't see this one going thro since it would mean a lot of taller horses would be throwing offspring that would measure out and since a lot of breeders seem to have switched to stock that is closer to 34 it would mean alot of unregisterable foals for them. Just my thinking.
 

BlueStar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
358
Reaction score
0
Location
Pacific NW
Oh and my 2 cents on the "premier certificate" what a joke. Please.


I second that!! What a joke...okay so now that we have went through all the trouble of having the horse measured 3 times by 3 different people and then averaged plus paid to have the horse microchipped (WHAT???) Your horse is still subject to height protest????? Hello the horse has already been measured, certified and chipped to be within the height boundries!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Millstone Farm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
591
Reaction score
0
About 10 or more years ago, I submitted a permanent height certification with similar criteria -- that the horse be measured AT the World Show by several measurers and that it would be announced so spectators could attend and witness the measuring. I thought it would drastically cut down on the time it takes to measure our horses at the World Show and eliminate the need to measure our older (5+) horses. Owners had the option to get the permanent measurement card -- it was not mandatory.

It was defeated because (I was told), once a horse got its permanent measurement there would be no way to keep trainers/owners from growing exceptionally long feet on driving horses (to get a lot of action).

I don't think this new rule will fly, either.
 

Tango

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Okay, wait a minute - I must really be confused on this or something because it just doesn't jive.

"Article XI, Section 4, Permanent Registration, page 25 767

Submitted by: Julie Miller

Change as below:

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, measured at the base of the highest point of the withers last hairs of the mane while standing squarely on a level surface, and have met all the requirements of the Association."

Just what in the world is that supposed to mean? How can you measure at the "base of the highest point of the withers and also the last hairs of the mane???? Talk about an ambiguous meaning!

Nikki
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Katiean

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
3,531
Reaction score
2
Location
Northern Nevada
Actually, the "Base of the highest point" isn't that the bottom???
I mean, if you are at the base of the highest mountain, are you not at the bottom??
 

sfmini

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
3,088
Reaction score
136
The vote in June is done by the committee to recommend to the board that a proposed change is taken forward to the next membership meeting in February or to die in committee.

The votes taken will not pass any new rules, they can fail them at that point but the committees then have to justify their decision to the board and attending membership and the board has to agree.
 

Margo_C-T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
111
Please, everyone--go to the ORIGINAL on the AMHA site (the link is actually visible on the home page, on the right side of your screen). There are STRIKETHROUGHS in the text there that did NOT show up in the text as printed here on this thread(in dontworrybeappy's original posting), which do change the apparent intent.

Heaven knows, the WAY a proposal is worded IS important; if it is deemed unclear, it may give an excuse to dump it.

With proposals to change Bylaws(which are handled differently from Rule change proposals)--the proposal must be presented in writing and signed by the proposer(notice that there is a new proposal going before the BOD at the June meeting to require 5 co-signers in future, though.) Any such Bylaw proposal HAS TO BE submitted BY THE CLOSE OF ONE ANNUAL MEETING IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO BE VOTED ON AT THE NEXT ANNUAL MEETING...IOW, a full year's 'lead time'.(As outlined in the '08 Rulebook, Article VI, Section 4(E), there is one other process that 'could' be followed; IMO, it is needlessly complicated AND out-of-date)--in fact, also IN MY OPINION-- MUCH of the AMHA Rulebook is out-of-date, vague (perhaps, deliberately??) and often unenforceable, which could be a reason for some of the current problems. One problem might be that the process of change is both lengthy and tedious, AND that any change can be put in place by only the VERY few members who have the time, money, and freedom to attend an Annual meeting. To maintain some semblance of a democratic organization, I believe, this HAS TO change.....

As I see it, Julie Miller was writing her proposal to provide a 'grandfathering' accomodation, to ease the transition to the UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED method of 'top of the withers' measurement, to allow the time for breeding programs to be adjusted to produce horses that, when mature, would 'measure in' at 34" or less at the TOTW. It looks quite reasonable to me, and would absolutely FIT the WIDELY STATED AND PUBLISHED AMHA 'standard' of a horse that is GENUINELY(??) NOT OVER 34" in height...Edited to add: several of my former 'show horses' would likely be eliminated by the new measurement from qualifying to show, but this doesn't mean I would be against a TOTW measurement--in fact, I am FOR it! If I ever breed again, the mares I'd use are well within the limit, even WITH TOTW measurement.

I have been reading and highlighting the current Rulebook. I have also begun reading back through a 4-5" high stack of files I have, which consist of EVERYTHING 'official' mailed to me by the AMHA from early 1985 until sometime in 2004-when they pretty much QUIT sending out info to their members via mail. It has ALREADY been an eye-opener, and I've barely gotten started! I may share some of the more interesting FACTS...I am a 'keeper of proof', so to speak...memory fades, but what was published/written, remains...and I can assure you that this habit has been of benefit to me, more than once!

Again, I'd URGE ALL members to seek out and read EVERYTHING that AMHA will share with its members about the rules, business, and running of the organization, from every available source! Then, if you can't find, don't understand, or believe something factual is missing, as within published minutes which don't seem to contain all the facts about what actually WENT ON during a meeting, bring it here to inquire and/or for discussion. THIS is the FORUM for miniature horses, after all....

Margo
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sfmini

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
3,088
Reaction score
136
Ooops, one thing I didn't think of in my previous posting, all Bylaws proposals MUST go forward to the membership for a vote, the other rules can be killed in committee.
 

Tango

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Margo, Just read the original and on Page 25, 767 it still reads "at the base of the highest point of the withers". The strike through is "the last hairs of the mane." That still makes no sense to me. Perhaps it is a typo?

I think it's great that we can read and discuss the proposed changes here now and great to see "top of the withers" being proposed. With them being read and discussed here, if there are typos, they could then be corrected before the meeting, hopefully.

Nikki
 

Margo_C-T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
111
Good sharp eyes, and attention to detail, Nikki--you are absolutely RIGHT! According to the AMHA office, it is NOT a typo, but the way it was submitted. I feel sure it was still an unintended oversight; according to the AMHA rules, the Bylaws committee can drop those few 'extraneous' words themselves, because it would NOT change the tone, scope, or intent of the proposal. Then it could go on to the 'membership' at the next Annual Meeting, under current rules, without those clearly unintended 'extra' words...Let's hope that's what they will do!

Margo
 

Boinky

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
1,979
Reaction score
0
Location
Kentucky
that may not have been an oversight at all.. it may have been a way of disquising and sliding through what is REALLY being said.. put in "top of the withers" and people think "must be a typo (or they miss it completely)..we are all for the top of the withers so we are going to vote yes for it".

Base of the top of the withers would be the bottom of the withers.
 

Tango

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Margo, depending on what extraneous words are dropped, could very well change the entire intent and tone of the proposal. The proposal would then either be "at the base of the withers" or "at the highest point of the withers."

Boinky, I agree. May not be an oversight at all. Could be a "build in a loop hole" tactic. In other words, make it as ambiguous as possible so people can interpret it anyway they want and get away with what they want.

So at this point, what is this new bylaw change proposal really saying, "at the base of the withers" or "the highest point of the withers"? You can't have both.

Nikki
 

R3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
247
Reaction score
5
This is Julie Miller.... Sorry I have been off the net for awhile, but I have been lurking. To be honest, I have not been in touch with much of anything besides my new job which is away from my home and family, so I have been preoccupied with that since the Annual Meeting in February. However, I guess its time I reappeared to hopefully shed some light on the different proposals I have submitted.

As some of you may remember, I was on the By-Laws and Rules and Regulations committee last year, and I was at the Annual Meeting. I feel I indadvertantly allowed the 'base of the withers' (BOTW) rule change to slip through. It wasn't killed in the committee, but it wasn't taken seriously, at least by me, and it didn't get much if any discussion at all. I know for my part I pretty much ignored it because I NEVER considered it had a chance of passing. I felt it was such a ridiculous rule that it would never be passed.

At the last Annual Meeting I also had a By-Law proposal to change the measurement, but it was to change it to the top of the withers (TOTW). In the General Membership meeting the TOTW was voted down, and then immediately following that they discussed the BOTW. I spoke out against the BOTW, but was totally unable to influence anyone, and the BOTW passed.

At the Meeting I was very upset about the BOTW and did the only thing I knew to do, and that was submit some new rules that might help to make changes at the next Annual Meeting. One was a new rule to change the measuring point back to the 'last hair of the mane' (LHOTM), and another to resubmit the rule to change to the TOTW. I also put in a rule that would 'grandfather' all the horses currently born that would measure 'over' if the measurement was changed to the TOTW. I included all the changes necessary to include how the TOTW measurement would affect showing.

I believe we ought to change to the top of the withers, and that we need a way to grandfather any horses that are currently living, or in utero when the rule is adopted, so that we don't 'lose' any horses that that 'become' overheight, only because the measurement point is changed. I wanted to post-date the implementation so that everyone has plenty of advance warning about the changes and could adjust their breeding program accordingly. With advance notice, it shouldn't cause any huge adverse affect.

Again, I believe that the TOTW withers is the RIGHT thing to do, but if there are not enough people to support this, then going back to the Last Hair of the Mane is BETTER (much better) that the nebulous 'Base of the Withers'. I have major problems with that point of measurement!!!! but I won't go off on that tangent in this thread.

I have already made plans to attend the meetings in June, so I will be there to make sure my proposals are written clearly and understandably. I have not gone through the apparent changes that have happened since they were submitted a the Annual Meeting. I think that the problem is probably because when it was written, I was still referring to the rules currently in effect, the LHOTM, and not the BOTW, which would actually be the 'measurement point' by the time my rule would be considered. So, it may take a little 'tweaking' once it is in Committee in June. The Committee can not change my original intent, and since I should be there, I should be able to get it fully straighten out.

Julie
 

Margo_C-T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
111
I came back to apologize; I was INCORRECT in stating that the committee should be able to 'drop the extraneous words'. In a more careful reading of the Rulebook, I see that WITH BYLAW CHANGES, "...only the submitter may make changes to the original proposal prior to or at the mid-year Bylaws committee meeting".(direct quote). In this case, it is ONLY Julie Miller who can make any changes, then, as she is the one who submitted the proposals. So glad to see her posting about this, BTW!

Margo
 
Top