AMHR/ASPC Cross Enter at SAME SHOW Proposal

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

Getitia

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
4
Location
Circleville, Ohio
Something to keep in mind is that a "shetland" pony breed cannot just be compared to an Arabian or Morgan or Saddlebred - in that the American shetland pony has many "looks/types" that all show separately - and when the public hears the word shetland - mentally the general public typically without any knowledge of all of the different american shetland divisions thinks of either a little tiny short legged thick pony "or" a high stepping miniature saddlebred type. They completely forget about the look of today's "Foundation" Shetland or the "Classic" Shetland pony. After having thousands of visitors over the years at Equine Affair view todays' true Classic 44 inch Shetland pony - it was very rare - about 1 out of 1000 who correctly identified the classic shetland on exhibit as a classic shetland.

The seed stock of the miniature horse was basically formed from many of the "foundation" shetlands and also small grade shetland ponies - Blue Boy - AKA - Silver White Breeding - Arenosa bloodlines/Kewpie Dolls Oracle/Kewpies Sun - Rowdy - Gold Melody Boy - Buckeroo and so forth

So as Modern (think Hackney Saddlebred type) Shetlands are being bred down in size and hardshipped as a miniature horse - no they don't look like a foundation shetland (and should not) - Plus they are suppose to be shown separately in the Shetland shows - hence they don't look like the "straight" for lack of a more descriptive term miniature horses - aka foundation shetlands. Same with Classics - many of which have known Modern blood.

And trust me the Shetland breeders already have their challenges because there are no type/breeding restrictions between Modern/Foundation/Classic/Modern Pleasure ' American Shetland" subtypes - thus what is and has been occuring is that a modern type shetland can be bred to Foundation types and Classics to Moderns and classics to moderns and what often occurs is a tweener - they are a blend be"tween" these various subtypes and then the owner has to decide what american shetland division do I show this tweener in? If they are foundation sealed ( and many Modern types have foundation seals), but they don't have the action needed to compete in the Modern division - and sometimes are shown in the foundation or classic division.

Just wanted to share my personal thoughts of some of the root issues behind the discussion/comments and provide some fact based information as to why all American Shetlands do not look alike - nor why they should. And when some of the very small Shetland subtypes are shown at the Nationals - why they look different - it is because they should look very different just based on the breeding objectives of the subtypes of the Shetland breed. So sometimes the various subtypes just happen to be small and mature under 38 ( miniature horse height) which by the way all shetland ponies have a maximum height - and no minimum - so for those individuals that breed under 34 shetlands - showing a 32 inch shetland against a 42 inch shetland doesn't have much appeal - any more appeal than showing a 28 inch miniature against a 38 inch miniature.
 

RayVik

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
I have done a lt of soul searching about weighing in on this thread but just let me say I think my horses are more correct and on type and prettier then yours (lol) but I have a lot of fun and get a lot of enjoyment trying to prove it to the judges and all my friends at shows ... So I suppose my position would be the more opuritunity I have the more fun I have.... I don't have to register my animals with anyone and when we have contest on who's piece of paper their registration in typed is prettier i will probally enter that contest too as long as i enjoy it and if my minis paper is white and my Shetlands paper is cream so be it because i will still want to believe mine is better and prettier lol

If a animal has papers by our present rules they can show and if its a winning horse Shetland or mini most people know of it and if its up and coming people will hear of it so if its at a show does what it shows as today at a show really matter when next week it shows as " the other"...

Seems that if there is such a difference in style or type between the Shetland and minis ( I know their is) then what better way to bring that to light then to have the same judges forced to evaluate a horse against other hopefully more refined horses/ponies in what they represent at a single venue
 
Last edited by a moderator:

muffntuf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
2,662
Reaction score
19
Location
Askov, MN
Thank you Karen. I would also think you would have to charge an extra office fee as a shetland as well because you are dealing with 2 sets of different paperwork. Almost dealing with a completely different horse. The only thing you wouldn't get would be the extra stall fee.

Now with this ruling would you have to get a different judge just for the shetlands since this is quoted from the rule book:

"A judge may not visit the horses' stall area, witness the measuring of animals, inspect, or discuss any horse entered in the show before the judging, nor shall a judge review the show program until after the judging has been completed."

Or would this new rule just replace it or is this statement not even talking about the actual judging of an animal? Cause to me the word "inspect" means to judge or examine.
The ASPC/ASPR/NSPPR ponies do not get charged a second office fee for having another set of papers - the show managers just have more classes to enter that one pony into. Hmmmm.
 

JMS Miniatures

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
3,554
Reaction score
119
Location
Wentworth, MO
It's not the same horse though. If your showing in both you have to pay for both. One set of work on AMHR's side and another set of work for ASPC, and that should also include 2 sets of different numbers.

This could be the same as saying AMHA and AMHR are 2 different shows and 2 totally different registeries. We can say AMHR and ASPC are 2 different shows and 2 different registeries, it just happens to be that they belong in the same club. If managers feel that they should not have people pay the extra office fees then thats their opinion. But I think the managers should have the right to be able to charge a extra office fee for that AMHR/ASPC pony if they decide to show in both. Same goes if shows put on a flat fee, they should also pay a extra flat fee as a pony and as a mini.

This is how I feel after thinking about it. Just let the dual shetlands show as a shetland at the same show. If this is the only way to get shetlands to show then let them do it. Even tho we cannot allow qualification because their aren't enough ASPC shows in the country, which IMO isn't good enough reason not to allow qualification. AMHR has to qualify, AMHR had to start some where. It's listed on the site's home page that ASPC is the oldest small equine registry in existence. So what happened? Why isn't the ASPC flourishing? Instead they have to go thru the AMHR to gain interest.

If ASPC can have many different types and have it actually divided by type (Foundation, Classic, Modern Pleasure, Modern) then why can't AMHR? We can compare it to a Modern competing against a Classic? 2 completely different types but they are still a pony. Same can be said comparing a shetland vs a miniature, they are a different animal. Sure they may belong in the same height category, but that doesn't mean they are one of a same.

When I picture a Pleasure/Saddle type this is what I picture. A horse that is more flash, high-stepping trot. More refined but strong boned. Typically more hot blooded. Large expressive eyes with shaped ears on a well-shaped head. Neck is long with a clean throatlatch, arched and well flexed at the poll. Well-defined, prominent withers and shoulders deep and sloping and strong level back.

Stock/Hunter: A horse that shows more of a powerful build with well muscled hindquarters. Long and sweeping stride with little flexion at the joints. Should move smooth with no excessive knee action or short and choppy movement. Calm and relaxed but pays attention.

Draft: A horse that shows strength, patience, and a docile temperament. Muscular build. Upright shoulder for upright movement. Broad short backs and powerful hindquarters. Much heavier boned.

Now tell me where you majority of the shetlands will belong. I think many of the AMHR only breeders feel that the shetlands have come in and stole the show. A new division a new type and has a winning edge against the miniatures. For sure it is the owners rights to show these shetlands as a miniature if they fit the height requirement and are AMHR registered. But I feel and I'm sure others feel if nothing changes and continues to go on like it is we might as well change the name to American Miniature Shetland Pony Registry. Sure one person won't like one type vs the other and its not a perfect system, just has its been said in ASPC, but should we be forced to accept one type that wins and when our standard is so vague we will naturally have different types in the registry.
 

muffntuf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
2,662
Reaction score
19
Location
Askov, MN
Wow! I know this is an age old discussion and it is heated on both sides. But please remember - ASPC is the oldest small equine registry. AMHR was started by the ASPC, so it is under its umbrella. Same as ASPR and NSPPR. I am very happy to have all 4 registries under one roof. Very glad AMHR Nationals holds its own. All these registries exist under the ASPC hat though - it was good business for the ASPC to expand its wings, so to speak - good business practice to offer another registry such as the AMHR and now the ASPR and NSPPR.

ASPC is a business. Not for Profit, but still a business. If the ASPC offered another registry that they thought would bring in money to the registry - then it is worth considering.

Instead of this division - we should look at it as the BOD does as well as the office - its a business.

I don't have any issues with this rule proposal and most show managers I have spoken with this weekend - its no big deal to them.
 

LaVern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
1,299
Reaction score
34
The difference to me is that ASPC is a pony and AMHA is a miniature horse. I've heard a zillion times about AMHR being only a height registry but this is where many of us miniature horse fans would argue that after breeding miniature horse to miniature horse for some 50 years or so there really is a distinct animal that is different from a pony. I don't believe miniatue horses are only small Shetlands now, I think there is more to it than that after all of these years of breeding. Many will disagree with me and I appreciate all points of view on this. For me the Arabian is a good illustration...Arabians were used to create the modern day Thoroughbred horse over many generations and yet we don't say a Thoroughbred is really just a faster Arabian. We understand that years of selective breeding can and has created a different animal all together.
Gee, you said that good.

I feel that years ago ASPC gave us the chance to create a new little horse. If we had wanted to buy another breed we would have, but we saw this as a chance to do something new and exciting. I don't feel that the AMHR, espeically the B division, was created to become a flop house to promote another breed and then to be legally closed to any other influence of any other breed.

It doesn't matter where they come from, it is more improtant to where we they are going, and if changes such as this keep favoring the Shetlands then that is where we will be going.

This might seem like kind of a small matter to some that jost love to show, and not breed. But, it is a very big deal to Straight AMHR Breeders.

I sure hope that someone that is going to Convention, as most of us can't go very often, will print this off this whole thread and pass it around.

We don't all agree, but we do care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

muffntuf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
2,662
Reaction score
19
Location
Askov, MN
LaVern - I do see your point, but I have not seen anyone start the process of rule change proposals or proposals to start taking the AMHR into a breed distinction on its own merits. Maybe someone has more information than that out there? I am not speaking of AMHA's actions- speaking strictly for AMHR.
 

JMS Miniatures

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
3,554
Reaction score
119
Location
Wentworth, MO
Perhaps there has been proposals but it never gets a chance to be voted on. I have had several ideas, what I suggested earlier was one of them. And I have asked for help but get no response. I would like to see a change but it needs to be presented right and not just something that I typed up in 5 minutes.
 

muffntuf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
2,662
Reaction score
19
Location
Askov, MN
I didn't get any help when I typed up my first proposals, nor do I get help now. Although I do find I spend a lot of time researching for appropriateness in this registry - and if it lines up with what the other divisions in the rule book already have in place, etc. But non-the-less, type it up and work on it for next convention, they are due every July 1st to the appropriate committee.

Not always do they pass, and if you are present you do have the opportunity to change a phrase, word etc. to get it through committee. If you aren't present you have the next year to change it.

It's a process. For as much as I have spent a couple hours reading through this - the rulebook exists already - if you want to change something- everyone involved in that division or registry - needs to hop on board with your proposal to get it passed.
 

Lewella

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
17
I'd hate to see the AMHR ever go to showing on Type. Type is a can of worms, the plethora of divisions and the fights over TYPE are one of the major things that holds ASPC back. That and the population isn't huge with only around 1000 foals registered per year. The only time the ASPC population was huge was in the early 1960's when Shetlands were commanding higher prices than Thoroughbreds. Then the Shetland market went through a MAJOR correction. The correction was so major that it was necessary for the ASPC to call all registration papers in for revalidation in the late 1960's and early 1970's so we'd have an idea of just how many animals were still out there after the market crashed (not enough...which was one thing that led to the registry opening to Hackney, Americana and Welsh outcrosses from the mid 1970's to the mid 1990's). Any papers that were not revalidated were voided. Some of those animals who didn't revalidate went on to become the foundation of the AMHR.

Up until the mid 1980's all Shetlands were shown as Moderns are now. The "original" movement that later became the Classic movement happened in the early 1980's. Within 15 years the ponies that the Classic movement had given a place to show were no longer winning in the Classic division. The Foundation division started in 1999. Now many could argue with validity that the pony that both the Classic and Foundation divisions were created for no longer has a place to show. Foundation is technically a subdivision of the Classic with its own type standard. The Modern Pleasure division is a subdivision of the Modern with shoeing restrictions and without its own standard - it is meant to be a gateway into the Modern division. Oh - and as Getitia pointed out many Moderns are Foundation Certified - all three of my Modern stallions are Foundation Certified. See how confusing that is? Do you really want that for the AMHR?

Type is never as simple as it sounds!
 

JMS Miniatures

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
3,554
Reaction score
119
Location
Wentworth, MO
Are we happy as it is now?

This is why I haven't presented anything. No idea is better then one. A group really needs to come together if anyone wants a change. This would be bigger then a simple rule change, unless it's a simple case of closing the books for everyone.
 

muffntuf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
2,662
Reaction score
19
Location
Askov, MN
Which would still require research and the writing of a proposal to closing the books. But if you the >$100k is any indication of not wanting to close the books because hardshipping is half price right now - I wonder how many BOD members will want to look at closing the books.
 

LaVern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
1,299
Reaction score
34
Perhaps something like allowing of hard shipping ASPC or AMHA to AMHR as non showable Brood Stock.

Prospective mares and stallions at 3 yrs.of age, after inspection, height measurement and DNA (fair fee)

Registering offspring of those broodstock horses at 3 yrs. of age after inspection height measurement and parent qualifying. (fair fee)

Thats says to me that we care about honest papers and height. It also says that the Club thinks right highly of the American Miniature Horse Registry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Minimor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
8,705
Reaction score
1,158
Location
Brandon Manitoba
That also means that you must start doing DNA on ALL breeding stock and all foals at time of registration.
 

LaVern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
1,299
Reaction score
34
Yeah, all the hardshipped ones. Thats what AMHA has had us do in order to hard ship for years. Prove your self worthy, I guess. I always thought it was a good idea.

Maybe, it would not fly, but I hate to see the whole thing close, because what" if" another or Rock E or Kid Lee, or Bob or Rowdy or one of the many others that could help us improve our new horse were kept out. I used to think I wanted it to close, but I have changed my mind.
 

ohmt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,331
Reaction score
111
That's an excellent idea, Lavern! I like it-a compromise for both sides
default_smile.png
 

Minimor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
8,705
Reaction score
1,158
Location
Brandon Manitoba
AMHA requires it because they also have DNA for horses otherwise. An organization cannot ask hardshipped horses to have DNA done if the registry doesn't otherwise require DNA.

If you want to ensure that breeding is honest and horses are who they are supposed to be then that has to apply to everyone, hardshipped or not. You can't seriously believe that people lie when hard shipping but not when they do regular registrations???
 

JMS Miniatures

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
3,554
Reaction score
119
Location
Wentworth, MO
I think its a great idea. Would also help the sales of AMHR only geldings.

As far as DNA goes, bring it on, I'm all for it.
 

Minimor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
8,705
Reaction score
1,158
Location
Brandon Manitoba
To backtrack to the showing on type idea--I see people generally being unhappy with that if it were to be implemented. For one thing--stock type and hunter type would about have to be two divisions--I don't see they belong together.

Secondly -- stock type. Are you thinking QH stock type, or would a Morgan stock horse type fit in there too? The two don't look quite the same and I can see someone being unhappy when the wrong sort of stock horse wins. Same with hunter type; almost certainly someone would show a horse that someone else would consider saddle type (after all, have you see the Morgan hunter horses???) so, if someone wins with a Morgan hunter type of horse the people showing the QH hunter type horse are going to be very upset.

There are Shetlands who are very hunter type. I have one that would be a gorgeous hunter under saddle (my mom sees him western, I see him hunt seat). If he were mini sized and I showed him in hunter type, some people would complain. I would never show him as saddle type...because he isn't. But as hunters go he would be very stylish and people showing a different sort of hunter would be unhappy to be beat by him.

Showing by type wouldn't solve any problems at all.
 

JMS Miniatures

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
3,554
Reaction score
119
Location
Wentworth, MO
I understand that really hunter type don't belong with stock type. If anything they go more on the lines of pleasure and saddle types. Also if it was separated by type I certainty want movement to be considered which you have said more then one occasion, and I see morgans have more of a animated gait and stock horses don't have that. I see morgans more of a pleasure type. Like I said before my idea is not perfect, which is why I would not want to submit such a proposal. But there needs to be a change that would benefit AMHR as a whole. Ideas like Lavern's is a good one. Ideas like that are better then sitting behind a computer and typing out and crying out foul.

Also going back to DNA it's only going to be a matter of time. It's already started with the sweepstakes. If you have a large herd start DNA now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Top