AMHA Members: Breed or Height?

[ClickMini]

Considering all of the brouhaha over the measuring post, here is what we actually ARE voting on in February! These items were lifted directly from the June meeting minutes. These things ARE being advanced to the membership for vote. Let's discuss, and if you really care about it one way or another, you better start looking at plane fare!

#184, page 43 #753

Submitted by: Gordon Harris

184 REGISTRATION PROCEDURE

Applicant must complete, sign and submit proper AMHA registration application forms, with four color

unaltered photographs (effective on a voluntary basis January 1, 1998 and required by June 1, 1998) of

the horse taken in accordance with requirements on the form, to the Association’s Registrar. As of

December 31, 1987, only the foals of previously registered sires and dams are eligible for registration,

with the exception of those horses qualifying under the hardship clause. Amended 12-6-03, effective 01-04)

PROPOSED: Beginning January 1, 2009 2013 only offspring of two (2) AMHA registered horses shall be

eligible for registration. The AMHA shall have the right to require parent qualification by DNA of any horse whose parentage is in question.

Delete the entire Hardship #193 section

The Rules & Regs Committee recommends sending to the membership, but has no

recommendation regarding the rule amendment.

If the above is accepted, add:

#184-F

Horses which measure over 34” on or after the date of eligibility in permanent registration shall

receive permanent papers which are different in color from horses which are under 34” and

which are designated “Breeding Stock”.

Failed by the Committee.

#193A, page 51 #756

Submitted by: Barbara Ashby

An AMHA Application for Registration, along with a letter requesting Hardship Registration must be

submitted to the AMHA office. This request must be accompanied by four (4) current color unaltered

photographs (effective on a voluntary basis January 1, 1998 and required by June 1, 1998) of the horse

showing all identifiable markings and the proper fees for Hardship Registration. For Hardship

registration a horse must be five (5) years of age or older. All Hardship horses except geldings must be

DNA tested, effective January 1, 1998. (Amended 12-6-03, effective 01-04)

The Rules & Regs Committee recommends sending to the membership, but has no

recommendation regarding the rule amendment.

#193E, page 52-53 #757

Submitted by: Barbara Ashby

A parent may be noted on a Hardship registration certificate if qualified by DNA testing. A late or

amended stallion breeding report and/or a breeders certificate will be required from the owner of the

parent at the time of breeding if other than the person registering the Hardship horse. (Amended

2-21-03, effective 01-04) In the case of a hardshipped horse who has an AMHR registered sire

and/or dam, if a copy of the official AMHR Registration Certificate accompanies the request

for Hardship registration, such parentage will be included on the AMHA Certificate.

Failed by the Committee, will not be submitted to the membership.

#193, page 51 #758

Submitted by: Richard Sievert

Delete the entire #193 section to eliminate Hardship Registration.

Withdrawn by R. Sievert

Long Range Planning

Chair Clair Severson reported the committee did have a quorum. The committee is working on

several issues, closing the studbook , developing a Research Committee, AMHA funding a perpetual fund for Studbook. As the committee works through these issues, details will be

brought to the Board.

 

[slv]

Sad to think that if we cannot get away or afford a plane ticket and the time off of work that we really don't have ANY say as to these subjects. BUT to answer the question of the post, I SAY BREED ORGANIZATION!!

 

[nootka]

I will more than likely not be at the meeting, but I would rather have a breed than the silliness over the height, though I do not want to lose the height, either. I'd like better enforcement at every level of shows, and anyone intimidating anyone else to be suspended as well their horse disqualified from being shown for at least that year.

I'd also like to have more discrimination in dwarfism, but that's really hard to enforce at a registry level. From the photos, I would hope they could tell, but it might require inspection by directors. I don't want to see all the somewhat overs lose their papers, but would rather see it honestly reported, and I don't really want to see 36" horses taking titles over horses that are legitimately 34" or under, and same goes for every height class.

Liz M.

 

[runamuk]

I'd like to see AMHA become a breed registry, that accepts the over horses as breeding stock. I would also like to see the breed have a definate goal set for type that is more specific. Requiring 34 and under for showing is fine but denying a horse papers when it is out of generations of AMHA papered stock is just plain ridiculous.

 

[sfmini]

The reason the rules and regs committee failed the one proposal was because there was no corresponding bylaw change proposal and thus the new rule would have been in direct conflict with the bylaws. This was determined by the rules and regs committee talking to the bylaws committee.

So, to quote Paul Harvey, "and THAT is the rest of the story".

 

[Reble]

We will not be going to vote, but still height not breed.

Why do people always want to change the rules when it is not good for them

Just Wrong

You have a registry for over and that is why we have ours double registered.

This will only help the overs keep breeding over....

What will be next...

 

[ClickMini]

Jody, my purpose in bringing this up is to point out that the very issues that are getting people hot and bothered have been proposed and will be voted on.

Going to the meeting last year and getting somewhat involved in the registry in that way really opened my eyes to the "process," which I was not fully aware of before. I will say that the committees did discuss these items, research them, and pass/no pass based on the type of thing you say. People really have to research the entire rule book before writing a proposal, because if it causes conflicts in the rules, it will not advance to the membership.

I am glad that the annual meeting will be web cast this year, so that people can watch the proceedings. I wish the committee meetings would also be webcast, so that people could see how those discussions are held. I think it would go a long ways toward alleviating suspicion about motives, etc. Because when I was at the committee meetings anyway, I did not see any of that. People who were strong on their positions in discussion, but no scheming, etc., that some people seem to think goes on. I may be naive however, I will admit.

I would sure like to see absentee voting on these subjects be available to the membership. That is one reason why I signed up to be on the sub-committee that was investigating that, but it doesn't seem to have gotten off the ground. Bigger fish to fry in the main computer committee I suppose.

Just wanted to point out that there is an opportunity here to be involved in what gets decided at the meeting and goes into our rule book. Seems to be something people feel strongly about, including me.

 

[RockRiverTiff]

The prospect of finally becoming a breed is exciting, but at the same time what an endeavor! I know we have a standard of perfection, but I don't think it's at all specific enough to be considered a breed standard. Would we have divisions like the ASPC's Moderns and Classics?

I am a big advocate for the height issue (under 34" that is), but looking at it from a breed standpoint, for years we have allowed horses of unknown parentage to be registered in the AMHA, while 35" throwbacks from generations of AMHA stock have no legitimacy. We are, after all, merely a height registry. As a breed, it makes sense that we would recognize horses that are "purebreds" even if they are outside the standard. We wouldn't be the first to have a breeding stock designation. And if breeding stock can't be shown, I don't see how it would benefit or encourage anyone to continue to breed away from the standard. Perhaps horses of breeding stock designation could be inspected? But I'm sure that's a long way down the line.

So to summarize--I say BREED over height. (But if we truly can't have both--does that mean we will no longer call them "Miniature" Horses when they become a breed?)

 

[targetsmom]

I would also be in favor of "breed" rather than height. I think the Pinto Breed has some rules and policies that AMHA might consider. PtHA has a Breeding Stock (solid color) Division for animals that do not meet the color criteria, but have Pinto registered parents. They do have classes at shows for these horses, but the ideal is still a horse/pony/mini with color. For horses and ponies (but not miniatures) PtHA has 4 types: stock (QH, Paint), hunter (TB), pleasure (Arab, Morgan), and Saddle (saddlebred). So there is no one "Breed Standard".

And as I mentioned on the other thread Pinto issues measurement cards for minis and ponies. Young stock are measured ONCE each year and that is their height for the entire show season. After three years with no change (over a certain age) they can be issued a permanent measurement card. So the office has all the heights and animals don't "shrink" for the World Show. Only minis/ponies who don't have their cards have to be measured at each show.

 

[txminipinto]

I would also be in favor of "breed" rather than height. I think the Pinto Breed has some rules and policies that AMHA might consider. PtHA has a Breeding Stock (solid color) Division for animals that do not meet the color criteria, but have Pinto registered parents. They do have classes at shows for these horses, but the ideal is still a horse/pony/mini with color. For horses and ponies (but not miniatures) PtHA has 4 types: stock (QH, Paint), hunter (TB), pleasure (Arab, Morgan), and Saddle (saddlebred). So there is no one "Breed Standard".

And as I mentioned on the other thread Pinto issues measurement cards for minis and ponies. Young stock are measured ONCE each year and that is their height for the entire show season. After three years with no change (over a certain age) they can be issued a permanent measurement card. So the office has all the heights and animals don't "shrink" for the World Show. Only minis/ponies who don't have their cards have to be measured at each show.

PtHA is NOT a breed registry, strictly color registry only.

 

[Billy G]

I think it should be a ht register, anything under 34" is a miniature horse, anything over , within reason , is a small shetland.

 

[disneyhorse]

I don't actually care either way... but the FUTURE of the breed and the registries should be considered.

I find it interesting, that Registered American Shetlands have a show ring cutoff height of 46" and not too many ponies actually seem to grow a lot larger than that. Breeders really do try to breed for ponies that will stay within a height to show. Sure, lots of them are at the taller range of the scale but there ARE smaller Shetlands that are even under 34" tall!

Also, there is less stress if you know you can take your pony to a show and not worry about it's papers being pulled because you left a little too much foot on your pony.

Just adding that for perspective.

Andrea

 

[dali1111]

would sure like to see absentee voting on these subjects be available to the membership

I'm sure you and I aren't the only ones. I think everyone should be able to vote...yes we certainly have the right too but your average person doesn't have the money the buy a plane ticket every time an issue comes up. I hate to say it but the "little" people really have no say in matters.

Also I strongly believe it should be height. What sets minis apart is their size...not their bloodlines....puts on flame retardant suite.

 

[shelia]

I am new to minis and the topics on this forum has me a bit concerned about the future of minis. I am seeing a trend starting to develop when I read all the different topics. It reminds me of what happened to the Shelties (Shetland Sheepdogs). I own a few shelties and have read the history of the breed.

The first shelties were 13 inches and under. They looked quite different than they do today. The breeders wanted to make the breed better (as we all do) so they worked on what they wanted to see in the show ring. At that time they could use other breeds to get the desired results. Such as longer necks, nicer coat, head shape ect.. They used collies and bred them down to size. The problem with that was that once that was done they could no longer control size in the shelties. Even after many generations of breeding. The better looking ones were the taller ones. They had the look the breeders were striving for. So they finally got the breed size changed so the sheltie would have to be between 13 and 16 inches tall. In the litters even today you get taller or smaller shelties but they are not to be bred and are not allowed in shows. I have one of these undersized shelties. She is beautiful but does not have quite the headset for show. She is 12 1/2 inches tall and is not any way dwarf, just the original size. It saddens me that years ago the show breeders decided that this size was no longer legitimate. There are many out there with perfect conformation but not enough for the show breeders to recognize. That is the only reason the standard was changed. They fit it into the size that was commonly produced with the traits they wanted. Does any of this sound familiar to what we are reading on these topics? I am not saying this will happen with minis but I think you should be very careful when you down this road.

Shelia

 

[joylee123]

[SIZE=12pt]I think what a lot of folks forget is AMHA did have "oversized foundation stock" paperwork. This is not a new concept for the association[/SIZE].

 

[Tammie-C_Spots]

Personally I have two opinions-

1) become a bloodline rather than a height registry, close the books, eliminate hardship, raise 38" as maximum height for mature horses.

2) or the less strict- become a bloodline registry, keep harship but make it so improvement small breeds only would be allowed and have a maximum height for registration at 38". I say 38" because a majority of the "pony" breeds start about 40" or 10 hands so we'd still be the smallest equines".

I do not agree with the horses over 34" not being considered "mini horses". I have always thought up to 38" was the better height limit. At 38" as stated in #2 AMHAs would still be considered the smallest equines in USA. I would prefer a bloodline registry rather than a height registry and to do this you have to realize that it will include smaller and taller than the 34" for a miniature horse.

I have always liked the Falabella registry both here in and there homeland of Argentina because they are a bloodline registry not a height registry. They have an ideal height but will not disqualify a horse because of height. Even after almost 150 years of breeding the still average around 30" in height in Argentina and 32.5" here in the USA.

Just my two cents.

Tammie

 

[Buckskin gal]

I think it would be very difficult to get AMHA members to decide what would be the breed charateristics of a mini if it was decided to go for a breed status. I for one belive the height needs to stay or may as well not call them Miniature Horses. I personally think that there are so many beautiful 34" and under horses and hope the AMHA breeders will continue to strive for that most perfect 34' and under horse. IF the association decided to go the way of a breed, I think different divisions will need to be made to satisify those who aren't all breeding the same type. Miniature horses have such wonderful dispositions [for the most part] it would be a shame if that were to change with infusing too much of another breed. Mary

 

[sfmini]

Amy, it has not yet been decided if we can webast the meeting, per the chair of the computer committee via email today. Did someone tell you this was going to happen for sure? We want to, but last I heard, we don't yet know if the hotel has the bandwidth to support a webcast, or how much it will cost, then we have to figure out how to fund it.

 

[PrestigeMiniHorses]

I vote for AMHA to stay height. To distinguish the breed of a Miniature Horse might take more work than need be. I do believe that hardshipping should be closed. As for the studbook I don't know alot of information on that so I won't comment. I do believe that AMHA should remain a 34" and under association, just seems crazy to change it to allow over horses. I am not one of those people who believes a over mini is not a true miniature. I think they are in all aspects. I don't think we should do bloodlines though. Something that would take years to finalize if you ask me but I could be wrong.

 

[CyndiD]

Its wishful thinking on my part...but I would sure love to see the amha horses become a BREED. That way horses that go over a tad will not be thrown out of the association.