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

[Katiean]

When does this rule take affect? And as far as the measuring at the base of the withers, I have a mare that blends strait from the neck to the back. She is very flat. where would you measure from?

 

[Becky]

The new rules voted on by the membership at the meeting will go into effect Jan 1, 2009.

 

[Katiean]

I tried to post a picture on my last post. It never works and then there it is. Here are 3 pics of the mare I was talking about.

 

[Jean_B]

OK -- so I guess I'm still very confused behind the logic (?!?!?!?!?) of this decision....a statement was made that this was being done to make it so it would conform to how horses are measured overseas so that there would be less question on the true height of a horse....because we are now measuring at the last hairs, and when the overseas buyer received their supposedly 33.5" horse - it was actually 35" BECAUSE THEY MEASURE AT THE WITHERS!!!

So...now we are going to go with below the withers...which will that 33.5" horse (at below the withers) actually more like 36" or 36.5" at the withers!!!!!!! Does anyone actually think those countries will actually change their measuring practices?? They sure as heck didn't when it was at the last hairs. Why would they now?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this will actually [SIZE=14pt]destroy[/SIZE][/b, rather than help, our credibility with the overseas market. OH!

 

[Boinky]

Belinda,

I think that you should still go with the measuring at the withers. It will only help the integrity/creditability of the AMHR in the long run. The way they are measured now (both registries) is a fraud really. It would make things much easier for your new developing European base ect and all owners in general. I can't tell you how many newbies myself included when i first started had NO IDEA they were supposed to measure at the last hair of the mane.. i mean every other horse in the world is measured at the top of the withers. So what if there is several inch difference between AMHA and AMHR? They are two completely seperate identities and I mean we measure at both show's and it wouldn't matter because what they measure is what they measure at each individual club show. I think AMHA made a very stupid unwise move by making it even LESS "true" in measuring than it already was at the last hair and it will only hurt them in the long run.

As for AMHA not being ok with having horses that are over in the registry and breeding..THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING BY DOING THIS. they just accepted even LARGER horses into their registry.. it SCREAMS FRAUD. so what if you grandfather in those horses that would be "over at the withers" because if they are under at the back they are MOST DEFINATLY larger than what you were already accepting that would be grandfathered..the lodgic is warped and STUPID... I'm sorry i'm not against AMHA but it's STUPID... the lodgic and mentality behind it does not imply smart!

 

[royalview]

I agree with bionky in that all we need is another very confusing way to measure our horse??? HOw does this make any sense, if the majority of us cannot figure out what you mean by how to measure this new way can you imagine the harsh schooling we are all going to receive after we go to a show and learn that our measureing was way off!!! OH! Why not the top of the withers??

I think we all understand that!! I agree with Mona in that I dont think we should close our registry till we work out a way to genetically identify the dwarf gene, I bet if we really wanted to improve our breed eliminating those dwarf genes BEFORE closing the books would make the biggest betterment for our breed and then make the genetic testing manditory BEFORE allowing any one to hardship in. Yea new bloodlines without dwarfism. Do you really want this to be a breed or a height registry?? That is the question and untill that true mission of AMHA is to be a breed or a height I dont think that finding a new way to measure is adding any credibility to this supposed BREED . Its getting hot in here!!!

 

[susanne]

If a horse measures 34 at the last mane hair, 33.5 below the withers, and 35 at the top of the withers, it is still the same size of horse.

At its best, this is a matter of semantics, at its worst, it is fraud. Either way, we're parsing our words to make horses seem smaller than they actually are.

The simple, obvious answer, but the pne that is surely flame-bait, is to measure at the top of the withers and make the top limit 35. But I guess that would be admitting all of the previous subterfuge...

 

[Mona]

If a horse measures 34 at the last mane hair, 33.5 below the withers, and 35 at the top of the withers, it is still the same size of horse.

At its best, this is a matter of semantics, at its worst, it is fraud. Either way, we're parsing our words to make horses seem smaller than they actually are.

The simple, obvious answer, but the pne that is surely flame-bait, is to measure at the top of the withers and make the top limit 35. But I guess that would be admitting all of the previous subterfuge...

You are RIGHT ON THE MONEY with EVERYTHING you have said here Susanne!

 

[Boinky]

you've hit it right on the head susanne what i am thinking/feeling. I mean SURE it's great for all those people with "over" horses that wanted A papers (heck i have several i could get A papers on now..lol) but it's still a big lie and although good for individuals i don't see it being in the best interest of a whole club who bases it's whole theory on the size of the horse....

 

[ontherisefarm]

Could anyone tell me ( as I dont have a rulebook) if we as a membership could contest the rule about measuring ? It seems to me there are more people on here that dont care for it than do so if they ( AMHA) changed it so there wouldnt be as many upset members somehow I dont think it worked....

 

[mgranch]

Well I for one very much appreciate Riverdance's explanation of grandfathering!! I actually have even more questions about it!! My gelding is 4 and 34" at the last mane hair. So, with the measurement at the base of withers he is still an A registered horse which is what I paid good money for. If the rule was changed now to the top of the withers he would be over probably and I now am making payments forever on an R only horse. Not what I intended when I chose him!! So, since he is not yet permenent could he still be grandfathered?? How would they figure who gets grandfathered?? All A horses who measure 34" at the last mane hair??

 

[Riverdance]

Well I for one very much appreciate Riverdance's explanation of grandfathering!! I actually have even more questions about it!! My gelding is 4 and 34" at the last mane hair. So, with the measurement at the base of withers he is still an A registered horse which is what I paid good money for. If the rule was changed now to the top of the withers he would be over probably and I now am making payments forever on an R only horse. Not what I intended when I chose him!! So, since he is not yet permenent could he still be grandfathered?? How would they figure who gets grandfathered?? All A horses who measure 34" at the last mane hair??

Your horse should still make it in, since the chances are he is going to measure a little smaller now. Otherwise he would be grandfathered in based upon the last hir of his mane. Any horse born next year when the rule goes into effect, will not be grandfathered in.

 

[mgranch]

Thanks so much!! I understand now how this grandfathering thing works!! You do a great job explaining things so people can understand them! One more thought though if the rules changed again to top of withers and say my horse and others were grandfathered in then in a 34" class our horses would actually really be say 35" couldn't that possibly give an advantage to the taller horses?? Just a thought maybe a dumb one!!

 

[MiniHunterHorseFan]

I just thought of something is this considered the base of the withers? Doesn't AMHR measure at the base of the withers? Or no? Would a horse measured at an AMHR show be measured as taller than if he would be measured at an AMHA show this way? Because if so what if he measured 34 1/4 at an R show and was a B horse, but at an AMHA show measured as 33 3/4? That would be strange.

 

[Belinda]

Does anyone know who they have for new officers , I saw that Mike was Pres, but the rest I had to go to the barn and do some work and missed it..

 

[capall beag]

AMHA is a height registry.

It seems odd that they don't measure the proper way, the only truly acceptable way at the top of the withers.

Who on earth ever decided to change the universal way to measure a horse??

I makes no sense and this seems to be adding further confusion??

How will this help overseas buyers

It is crazy, imo, to insist horses be a certain height 34" or under to qualify..........but really they are not

It is so illogical!

I can see, however, now that the mess has been created it would not be that simple to reverse it.

But with the Grandfather clause. Why not now measure correctly, at the withers, and have a true height registry.

One where horses really are a certain height!

 

[disneyhorse]

Well... i do have to say the STRANGEST "measuring method" I've heard of was a man who inquired if my (18.1) hand horse was between 8-9 hands. "WHAT?" I said??? Where are you measuring?

He said he "bred Clydesdales a while back"

and measured at the bottom of the girth. (Not really sure the point of that one???)

But... if we measured the minis at the bottom of the girth they would be even SMALLER! And there would be a benefit for those people who had fatter horses that could measure "under"!!!

Andrea

 

[Boinky]

lol andrea..never heard of that one either..LOl might be a little more difficult to teach one to sink "away" to be smaller with the stick coming up from under them (not impossible i'm sure..LOL).

Well... i do have to say the STRANGEST "measuring method" I've heard of was a man who inquired if my (18.1) hand horse was between 8-9 hands. "WHAT?" I said??? Where are you measuring?

He said he "bred Clydesdales a while back"

and measured at the bottom of the girth. (Not really sure the point of that one???)

But... if we measured the minis at the bottom of the girth they would be even SMALLER! And there would be a benefit for those people who had fatter horses that could measure "under"!!!

Andrea

 

[Riverdance]

Hey guys I just got back from the barn and while I was out there I checked quite a few of my horses. On some of them, the mane goes past the end of the withers, so some of my horses just grew. On a lot of them the end of the mane and the end of the withers is about the same, and only one was going to get a little smaller.

I think many of you are looking in the wrong spot if you are coming up with and inch or more difference. This is why AMHA chose the end of the withers, to try and keep it as close as it was before.

For those of you who are still asking why it is not the top of the withers, go back towards the beginning of the posts and it is explained there several times why they decided to go this way rather than the top of the withers.

 

[wpsellwood]

Hey guys I just got back from the barn and while I was out there I checked quite a few of my horses. On some of them, the mane goes past the end of the withers, so some of my horses just grew. On a lot of them the end of the mane and the end of the withers is about the same, and only one was going to get a little smaller.

Mine are about the same too, with only one horse of the bunch smaller as his mane does not go down much at all. So I dont know what the fuss is about? Its the same forever one, its not like one gets to measure here and one gets to measure there. I come from racehorses for over 40 years of them, we measured at the top of the withers so what that was them. I know when we first got minis I didnt flip out because of where they measured. Its a rule deal with it.