AMHA is CLosing Their Books!! As well as a new Height rule change!!

[Warpony]

Why not change to the highest point of the withers and change the maximum height along with it? If you measure at the withers and change the max height to "36 inches," it's not like the horse's height is actually changing. The only reason I can think of for not doing this is to continue the "fraud" I guess of saying that these are 34" horses to the rest of the horse world, which they're not.

Measuring at a bone won't help much IMO, people can still stretch, push down (yes, the bone does go down if the back goes down!), trim feet down, etc...

OH!

I agree completely. The change in the breed from 34" being the height limit to 36" being the limit would basically be a change ON PAPER ONLY. I wish both registries would change to top of withers and add an inch or two to the limit. I do not understand why they won't do that aside from the fact that it makes the horses "sound" taller on paper. And of course we can't have that.

 

[sdmini]

I was gone when this first came up and refrained from commenting as it was already on the second page but I'll add my 2 cents now.

I find both measures not well thought out and rather self serving for the "few" rather than the whole.

On the closing of the books if AMHA is so flush financially why not kick that hardship money into a gelding incentive program. Over fifty thousand a year would be a good push for making geldings worth more, especially if you set up the program like the QH gelding incentive where EVERYBODY who shows a gelding gets a piece of the pie.

Honestly I wouldn't care if the books were closed IF, like others said, there was also a plan on the books excepting the over 34" horse but right now all we are, is an association who cut off it's nose to spite it's face.

As far as the measuring I'll admit I'm baffled on how many people swallowed this line. Relying on the word of a few that the measurements are the same. Plus the logic of it is more accurate as it's bone is completely fairytale material. Yes it's bone but when experienced horsepeople need to attend a school to find it; it is not a "better" plan. I have no idea who brought up measuring at the base of the withers but the very cynical part of me doesn't believe that they did not know how much smaller their horses would measure in the new system. There has been a lot of talk in the last couple of years about trying to get the taller horses in and this seems like a cloaked way of doing it.

How hard would it have been to issue the AMHA shows new forms with a blank spot to record the new way of measuring as well as the last mane hair height. Wow, unbiased data to make a decision on.....what a concept.

 

[Erica]

On the closing of the books if AMHA is so flush financially why not kick that hardship money into a gelding incentive program. Over fifty thousand a year would be a good push for making geldings worth more, especially if you set up the program like the QH gelding incentive where EVERYBODY who shows a gelding gets a piece of the pie.

Now that's a good thought

 

[skanzler]

Well here in the NW we had a meeting in February, prior to Convention. Our directors never once mentioned this rule proposal to the members. They did talk about closing he books. All of us were in agreement to not close the books. So that is what our directors were asked to take to Convention.

There was no discussion on measurement.

I think many of us did not know about this proposal. I am a member, but choose not to recieve the MHW. Some of us do not go the the website on a regular basis others don't have internet access, but we still pay for the privilage to be kept informed.

Our small local club sends out a newsletter and club member emails to inform members of important issues going on. Why can't AMHA do something like this prior to Convention. They had to know that this was going to be a HUGE issue for many.

The comment about no one talking much about the measurement proposal prior to the voting has me thinking that there was alot of behind the scene stuff going on and that it was a well thought out strategy to get it passed......HMMMMM

 

[ClickMini]

I have already stated my opinions on the rules in earlier posts, however I wanted to add this.

There is a woman who is half leasing one of my big horses and she comes out to ride several times per week. She is not a "mini person," and is not familiar with the breed whatsoever. I told her about the new rulings on measuring, and the first thing out of her mouth was, "that is ridiculous! You can teach them to sink down!" She reached over and pinched my mini's back and sure enough that supposedly fixed bony reference point dropped.

I am extremely interested to see how the conversation goes at the AMHA sponsored measuring clinic this weekend. I am really glad I signed up.

 

[sfmini]

AMHA uses the MHW to communicate with the members, there is also a newsletter you can choose to receive as well. Go to the website and request to be added to the mailing list.

EVERYONE knows the dates of the annual meeting and COULD make a point to check the website prior to that meeting, so I don't know how much more communication could happen.

You know that saying about leading a horse to water........

There was nothing secretive, it was all available just like all the other proposals and went through the 2 year process as defined in the flow chart in the rule book.

As for teaching a horse to shrink, you can do that with horses measured at the top of the withers. Trust me, I used to have an open jumper pony on lease that had been trained to shrink down to 14.2 as she was a hair over that.

 

[skanzler]

Amy,

I agree, Nikki and I went out and played around with different scenerios of measuring the horses in the barn. And this method is absolutely rediculous if the sole reason for the change is to keep the "cheaters" honest....Boy is that a conundrum....... OH!

Number one the divot, spot, dent, dip whatever is ver subjective... Diferent on each horse depending on their overall bone structure. Some divot's are more apparent. When I press down or stretch the horse it definitely made a difference in the height.

When we did the measurement at the top of the withers the point was very easy to find and much more consistant. Also when we pressed down on the back and stretched the horse it did not change othe overall height of the horse.

Just what we found.

I am very interested to find out how our measuring clinic goes this weekend also. I am glad I signed up to be certified.....

What I can see happening at the shows is alot of time spent at the measuring table discussing where someone "thinks" the "sweet spot" on thier horse is.

I really feel sorry for the certified measuring person......Ohhhhh that will be me.....

 

[sfmini]

Ah, but that certification will be for last hair of mane, not the new one since the new rule does not go into effect until 2009.

 

[skanzler]

So are you telling me that we are paying money to be certified to measure incorrectly?????

So does this mean that we will have to pay to be recertified when the new rule goes into affect?????

Now does that make sense to anyone else?????

If they are going to offer certification, then the certification official should be allowed to teach the new method of measuring to those being offered this clinc.

 

[sfmini]

I am sure that the new method will be discussed, but I have no idea what the person doing the clinic is planning. You will have to ask that person.

 

[skanzler]

Well she is being sent by AMHA to certify us as official measurer's. I would assume that she would be teaching what AMHA has designated her to do.

She must follow the rules set forth by the Association. I guess I will go to the source and find out what AMHA is going to recommend.

 

[Katiean]

As I think already stated on this post somewhere, without digging through 20 pages........if AMHA is doing this to become a "BREED" then that is fine and dandy.........but then it should be ANY horse out of two AMHA registered parents should have papers, even if they are 38" at maturity (and we know it "can" happen, even with two 32" horses, but especially with two 34/35" horses)

As if we are closing the book to become a breed, but still horses over 34" have to turn in papers aren't we still a "HEIGHT" registry?

Other kinds of animals have size/weight (would be the same as height) requirements and are a breed (mini rex rabbits). The only thing being over size does to them is makes them not able to show or be registered in ARBA. I have never bred over sized animals because if you breed over size you will most likely get over sized young. I think it all goes back to Breed the best to the best. We took 32 BOB, BOSB, BOV and BOSV at our last show. I am sure this would all translate into the Miniature Horses. I have a colt that is going to be near to 34" and in my opinion he is too big to breed to my 32"mares. I think AMHA should look at what other breeds of animals do. Even in Dogs a miniature poodle that is over size still does not give up it's papers. I would not breed it. That might be another's choice to breed. I would not because you need to breed within your breed standards. I hope this is as clear as mud. It is the best I can do in explaining you can have a size requirement in a breed registery.

 

[Kim]

Hi Jody (and all Directors reading),

I am a lifetime member, and have allowed my subscription to MHW to lapse (have got to get around to renewing it!), so I rely on the website for my AMHA news. I would appreciate it if someone could help me to understand why this new measuring rule change was allowed to be passed, and where on the website this new proposal was announced to members, as I cannot find it.

In an attempt to catch up on AMHA developments I may have missed, I did actually peruse the website in great detail prior to the 2008 Annual Meeting, as my region, for the first time in many, many years, now has a Director. And I did contact him prior to the Annual Meeting asking him to bring forth my concerns. Certainly, had I known that this new rule proposal was te be voted on at the 2008 Annual Meeting, I would have given him my input on that as well.

Prior to the meeting I found only the following places on the website that were relevant:

1. AMHA NEWS page where there are links to the following 'AMHA Mini News' newsletters, none of which say anything relating to proposed measuring changes. (I do also get these by email):

May 1, 2007

April 3, 2007

March 14, 2007

February 7, 2007

January 2, 2007

December 21, 2007

2. THE ASSOCIATION page where there is a (hard to find) link at the top for the following 2007 Board Meeting Minutes in addition to the archived 2006 minutes:

February - Annual Meeting

March - Board Teleconference Meeting

June - Board of Director's Meeting

October - Board Teleconference Meeting

NEW! December - Board Teleconference Meeting

I read ALL of these minutes prior to the 2008 Annual Meeting. The minutes of the June (2007) BOD meeting DO indicate that the Show Rules Committee discussed many proposed rule changes, including both the top of the wither and the base of the withers proposed changes. The following is a quote from the minutes:

"The Board voted unanimously to pass all Show Rules below which were passed by the Show

Rules Committee. These rules will be voted on during the 2008 Annual Meeting. The Show

Rules which failed go no further than this meeting."

The June 2007 minutes go on to indicate that the Show Rules Committee FAILED both the top of withers and base of withers amendments. So WHY, then, with no further notice to AMHA members, did these go to the 2008 Annual Meeting to be voted upon by members in attendance? And WHY was the base of the withers proposal allowed to be passed, since last notice to members it was failed by the Show Rules committee? I thought that the process was that if a proposed rule was voted down by the Show Rules Committee that was the end of the road for that proposed rule? Am I wrong in this?

Thanks in advance for any input.

AMHA uses the MHW to communicate with the members, there is also a newsletter you can choose to receive as well. Go to the website and request to be added to the mailing list.

EVERYONE knows the dates of the annual meeting and COULD make a point to check the website prior to that meeting, so I don't know how much more communication could happen.

You know that saying about leading a horse to water........

There was nothing secretive, it was all available just like all the other proposals and went through the 2 year process as defined in the flow chart in the rule book.

As for teaching a horse to shrink, you can do that with horses measured at the top of the withers. Trust me, I used to have an open jumper pony on lease that had been trained to shrink down to 14.2 as she was a hair over that.

 

[skanzler]

Thank you Kim, I too went back through all of my newsletters and website, MHW and found the same......I am also wondering how this happened?

As I stated, our directors did not mention this proposal and I know they would have discussed it at our meeting prior to them heading off to Convention. They would have known that it would be of concern.....

I would love to hear the answer to this question.

 

[sfmini]

That part is gone now, but it was titled Show Rule and Bylaw changes to be voted on at the annual meeting.

The show rule didn't get out of committee, but ALL by law proposals MUST go forward to the membership to vote and the membership voted it in.

I don't have my book with me, I am at work but when I am home I will look to see if the withers proposal was in the bylaw proposals. I don't recall that being there.

As for the measurer, she is certified by AMHA and if it is who I think it is, she has measured at the World show. She is NOT provided or sent by AMHA and is working independently in this capacity, so there is a good chance she doesn't know about the new rule change.

I will email the IT person now and ask for a copy of what was posted on the website.

 

[Relic]

Kim l read and put 2 and 2 together from the Dec issue...go to page 174/5 and read #775 then 780.

 

[skanzler]

Ok, if she is not backed by the Association, how can she give official certification to those attending????

How can we be official measurers? What is the point of offering this if it means nothing the AMHA. My understanding is this was to offer those that want to become "official measurer's" the opportunity to become certified and that AMHA would only be using "certified Measurer's" at the shows.

Was this misinformation????

Again, have a call into AMHA, guess what no one is at thier desk today???

 

[sfmini]

She is certified by, not employed by. Nothing bad happening as far as her qualifications. It is just like a trainer giving a clinic for god's sake.

 

[skanzler]

Jody,

Not sure what your idea is on me asking these questions, and as a director the "for god's sake" comment was not needed, nor the head banging. I hope you don't come across that way with your area

members.....

I am asking these questions as a concerned member that is interested in the continued success of the Association and as a person that is interested in becoming a certified measurer. It was my understanding that AMHA is going to be using Certified measurers in the future for all shows. I know that this is not official at this time, that is why I am talking with the home office. I do know that Diane is a Certified measurer and is used the Worlds. The cards she will be issuing will be recognized by AMHA. So yes she is in the capacity of representing AMHA.....

 

[bingo]

She is certified by, not employed by. Nothing bad happening as far as her qualifications. It is just like a trainer giving a clinic for god's sake.

OUCH!

I can see everyone's frustration. I can see the confusion in allowing over 34 inch horses into AMHA legally a long time proponent of 34 inch and under horses being the only true miniatures. I can see the anger at the system when less then 100 members make decisions that change the future and rock the very core of the registries.

This is an issue both registries will need to address and something I personally think will be changed in the not so far future. That would solve alot of the anger and frustration. Things may not always go the way one wants but at least everyone will feel their voice was heard and counted.