AMHR/ASPC Cross Enter at SAME SHOW Proposal

[Minimor]

AMHR

Standard of Perfection

A. General Impression: A small, sound, well-balanced

horse which gives the impression of strength, agility

and alertness. The disposition should be eager and

friendly, not skittish.

B. Size: The American Miniature Horse must measure

not more than 34 inches at the base of the last hair on

the mane for Under Division, and not more than 38

inches for Over Division. Since the breed objective

is the smallest possible perfect horse preference in

judging shall be given to the smallest, all other factors

being equal. In no case shall a smaller horse be placed

over a larger horse with better conformation.

Priority in judging shall be in this order:

1. Soundness

2. Balance and conformity to the standard of

perfection

3. Size

C. Head: In proportion to the body; neither excessively

long nor short. The eyes should be large, alert, and

prominent with no discrimination in color. The ears

open toward the front and carried erect. The teeth

Miniature Horse

Section XIII - American Miniature Horse Registry 4

should show no signs of parrot mouth or undershot

jaw.

D. Neck: Strong and muscular, proportionate to body and

the type of horse represented.

E. Body: Well-muscled with good bone and substance,

well sprung ribs, level topline, as nearly as possible of

equal height in withers and rump, fore and hind quarters

well angulated, so that the horse in movement

shows a smooth gait.

F. Legs: Straight, clean and sound.

G. Hooves: Round and compact, trimmed as short as

practical for an unshod horse, and in good condition.

H. Color: Any color, eye color and/or marking pattern are

equally acceptable.

I. Throat-Latch: Clean and well defined, allowing ample

flexion at the poll.

J. Shoulder: Long, sloping and well-angulated, allowing

a free swinging stride and alert head/neck carriage.

Well muscled forearm.

K. Hindquarters: Long, well-muscled hip, thigh and

gaskin. Highest point of croup to be same height as

withers. Tail-set neither excessively high nor low, but

smoothly rounding off rump.

L. Disqualifications: Height in excess of 34 inches for

Under Division and 38 inches for Over Division miniatures.

Dwarfism, unsoundness; or cryptorchidism

in aged stallions. Complete or partial loss of sight in

either eye will not be a disqualification if the loss of

sight results from traumatic injury. A licensed veterinarian

must verify the deltiology of the sight loss as

traumatic and such copy must accompany the horse’s

papers.

Miniature Horse 5 Section XIII -

American Miniature Horse Registry

M. Horse shall be shown with full mane and tail (no full

roach). Mane and tail length shall be left to the decision

and discretion of the exhibitor. Thinning, pulling,

shortening, etc., of a mane and tail is permissible.

Okay….

This is directed at dreaminmini, who earlier on posted that a Shetland (at least the small enough to be AMHR Shetlands) do not fit the miniature HORSE standard of perfection.  I am quite puzzled.

The ASPC/AMHR horses I have seen have very much fitted into the standard of perfection.  Many of them look exactly like the AMHR horses that do not have Shetland papers.  Some are more horse like than the majority of Miniatures.  As I see it, many Minis still look like the “ponies” of yesterday—if you grew them up into a 15.2 hh horse would they really look like a horse—or would their “pony” proportions be very obvious.  I would say the latter—you would be looking at a 15.2 hand pony rather than a horse.

Now—when you look at these two photos….

please tell me how these two do NOT fit into the standard of perfection above?  Obviously the second one doesn’t fit in by virtue of size…he is a 44” Shetland….but his type is most assuredly HORSE.  If he could be shrunk down to 37” he would fit the Mini horse standard perfectly.  How can anyone say that the American Shetlands do not look like HORSES?

The first horse pictured—the palomino pinto—is a Shetland Pony….but he fits within AMHR size.  When he is old enough…unless he has a major growth spurt…he will be able to hardship into AMHR.  How would he not fit the AMHR standard of perfection?  What is there about him that says “pony” rather than “horse”?  He is more horse proportioned than a good many Miniatures.  If I could grow him up to 15.2 he would truly look like a horse, not an oversized “pony”.   He would be a very nice Miniature Horse.  Will I show him AMHR? Quite possibly not.  As I said before, I like showing ponies…Minis, not so much.

Renee—in an earlier thread you yourself stated that once a Shetland gets his AMHR papers, in your view he becomes a Miniature Horse.  Remember that one?  Yet now when we are talking about ASPC/AMHR horses, you’re saying they are different. 

 

[drmatthewtaylor]

Thanks Doc Taylor, as I value your opinion. I know that this is a bit off topic too, but this was one of those things that happened without warning last year at Convention. It was quite a slap in the face to the Straight AMHR breeder. I think that it was good for only a year, and who know what will happen this year. I personally think that it should go back up to where it was for hard shipping the Shetlands, as we are all one outfit. But, as for the AMHA horses that want to be AMHR, I think that we should up it to exactly what they have been making us pay all these years. It seems only fair. If they didn't take advantage of it at 100.00, they have no right to grumble.

By the way, I dreamed that your Dad and Bruce showed up with a semi load of white faced sheep. It was the craziest thing. So real. Then Bruce told me that you guys do have sheep.

Thank you.

I actually just picked up a new ram last weekend, snow white from head to toe.

I for got on my last post, but I think the time has come to require qualifying for Congress. Not necessarily the exact same as Nationals (in large part because I do not know what that entails) and maybe with 'emeritus' status for some so they wouldn't have to abide by the rule. I'm thinking of a few older folks who have done a lot for the Club over the years and might only be able to make one show.

Dr. taylor

 

[LaVern]

(Renee—in an earlier thread you yourself stated that once a Shetland gets his AMHR papers, in your view he becomes a Miniature Horse. Remember that one? Yet now when we are talking about ASPC/AMHR horses, you’re saying they are different.)

I never would coment on pictures others horses.

But Of course I remember that statement. That is exactly how I feel. If I were a miniature director I would go to bat for any miniature horse that carried it's AMHR papers. I would fight like heck to say it was the most wonderful horse in the world. I would brag to the world that they put all other equine to shame and there was no other horse or pony that was worthwhile owning. I would fight to the death to protect the AMHR from outside influences that would try to undermine it's value. I would reveal that I do not know much about other breeds and could care less. I don't care about the history of other breeds. I care only about the AMHR horse. I would shoot my mouth off and tell all that would listen that there is no other horse worth having. I would support any change that looked like it would be of benefit to the AMHR horse. I would vote against anything that might hurt the already registered AMHR horse. I would also abstain from voting on most of the stuff I don't know beans about which would be most of it.

Maybe I will run, and if there is anyone out there that feels as strongly about the AMHR miniature horse, I would throw them all my support, (that would be Swigg Hanson down the road he likes my cookies) - A Miniature Director that fights for the miniature horse and it's owners and its breeders.

 

[dreaminmini]

Holly, in no way am I inferring that Shetland's cannot have good/great conformation and most of the Standard of Perfection of both ponies and Miniature horses are very similar with small differences as if you were to read the Standard of Perfection to the Quarter horse, Morgan, Thoroughbred and the Welsh pony. Are they all the same? They must all have basic good standard conformation, agreed, but there are differences. Throw them all in the ring together and who wins??? It all depends who is judging. And it isn't really done that often, is it?? wonder why that is?? Well conformed or not ponies do have a distinct look, some subtle some not so subtle. and yes I think your guys look like ponies, very beautiful ponies. I am assuming you want them to look like ponies and not horses as you have changed over from the miniature horses you previously had. You know I like your ponies, I think they are beautiful but they are ponies and even you make the distinction that you prefer them to your minis. To each his/her own, I prefer my miniatures.

Holly, if you are right and there is no difference in the Standard between the miniature horse and Shetland, I have an idea, why don't we just change the name totally. Because if what you say is totally right then we have no miniature horse. We have the Modern, the Classic, the Foundation and the Miniature Shetland. There is no room for what was once known as the Miniature horse, it will soon become extinct. This idea is a real money saver. Just one Congress/Nationals, Why differentiate? This whole issue of people allowed to show ASPC and AMHR at the same show will be a moot point. If you outgrow the miniature Shetland papers then you just jump to the Foundation, Classic or Modern division. Why didn't someone think of this before?? Or did they and we are heading that way??

 

[chandab]

As for Renee's (LaVern) concern, she has a wonderful breeding program with championship-caliber horses and there always will be a market for that.

You said it better than I could, so I'll just quote you. Love, love, love Renee's horses; have two in my herd and would like more (hubby says no more).

 

[Flying minis]

This issue certainly has 2 sides and both have reasonable arguments.

Considering all of the arguments, I do not believe 'over showing' an animal is a reasonable argument. Many have used the phrase 'shown to death', I challenge anyone to demonstrate an occurrence of 'death by over-showing'. Now, I understand most people are using that phrase as an over exaggeration to make their point, but exaggerations tend to reduce the validity of an argument, not support it.

The obvious extension to the argument is the 'well maybe not to death, but some ponies are shown too much'. I would like someone to define 'too much' as to the detrimental effect on the animal. Again, I would challenge anyone to demonstrate an occurrence of 'injury due to over-showing'.

The last extension to the argument would be 'well showing in "x" number of classes per day is too much'. Any of us would defend an animal who was being beaten because it is too exhausted to continue. But, short of that, just because a pony gets tired after a number of classes doesn't mean it is being treated inhumanely.

The primary reason this is a concern to me is people who show one pony in many classes is far more likely to be an amateur who is showing for the fun of it. Now they read that others at the show think they are being inhumane? How likely do you think that amateur is to want to go to a show at all, when they know people are talking this way about them?

My secondary concern is people, like me, who bring a young pony and only pay once to show it in its open class are not the exhibitors that end up paying for the majority of a show. The people that pay the way for all of us 'one and doners' is the exhibitor that brings a pony that they show in many classes. I appreciate that they do and I hope they have fun.

Dr. Taylor

I'm one of those Amateurs who some people probably think "overshow" my horses. They drive, obstacle drive, do halter obstacle, hunter, and jumper, and showmanship. Are they tired at the end of the day? Sometimes. Are they "burned out" or "exhausted" or "abused" - hardly. . . why? Because I also have to PRACTICE all of those things at home - my horses WORK at least an hour a day 4-5 days a week. And I mean work - when they are in shape, they can click off 5 miles of road work in 30 minutes. Are they overworked? I don't think so - considering everyone of them freely comes to me to be caught and worked, I have to think they actually like their work. I don't need my horse to be "brilliant" for hunter or jumper or obstacle, and truthfully, most of the time at local shows, I don't need them to be "brilliant" - not like at Nationals. So maybe the overshow argument really doesn't hold water. . .

 

[Riverrose28]

Holly, in no way am I inferring that Shetland's cannot have good/great conformation and most of the Standard of Perfection of both ponies and Miniature horses are very similar with small differences as if you were to read the Standard of Perfection to the Quarter horse, Morgan, Thoroughbred and the Welsh pony. Are they all the same? They must all have basic good standard conformation, agreed, but there are differences. Throw them all in the ring together and who wins??? It all depends who is judging. And it isn't really done that often, is it?? wonder why that is?? Well conformed or not ponies do have a distinct look, some subtle some not so subtle. and yes I think your guys look like ponies, very beautiful ponies. I am assuming you want them to look like ponies and not horses as you have changed over from the miniature horses you previously had. You know I like your ponies, I think they are beautiful but they are ponies and even you make the distinction that you prefer them to your minis. To each his/her own, I prefer my miniatures.

Holly, if you are right and there is no difference in the Standard between the miniature horse and Shetland, I have an idea, why don't we just change the name totally. Because if what you say is totally right then we have no miniature horse. We have the Modern, the Classic, the Foundation and the Miniature Shetland. There is no room for what was once known as the Miniature horse, it will soon become extinct. This idea is a real money saver. Just one Congress/Nationals, Why differentiate? This whole issue of people allowed to show ASPC and AMHR at the same show will be a moot point. If you outgrow the miniature Shetland papers then you just jump to the Foundation, Classic or Modern division. Why didn't someone think of this before?? Or did they and we are heading that way??

You are correct! They are already becoming extinct, except in performance. As a straight up AMHR breeder try winning in halter at Nationals or selling just an AMHR reg. horse, it's nearly impossable. IMO They are being phased out! Yes you can still sell them at public auction or as a pet, but the ASPC/AMHR breeder doesn't want them, and that is what the judges are placing in halter. Yes I've won some at Nationals in the top ten, but try for a GRand and it's the ASCP/AMHR that is on top, and they get to go to Congress and Nationals. Even AMHA breeders are jumping on the band wagon, and if you look around you will see that some of the big name AMHA only farms are selling off and moving in this direction as well. Enough said. Lavern/Renne if you run for director hope you win, and wish you were in my area!

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Sdminis, I do support the state fairs, in fact I drove 14 hours to attend a state fair. Not to mention I spent 14 hour round trip to pick up another person and her pony to go show, then another 14 hours to take her home. This for a blue ribbon and to showcase my animals.

 

[Minimor]

Yes, Kim, they are ponies, but we both know that.  If I told you that little Gold was AMHR registered and that’s it, then he’d be a mini.  He wouldn’t be a pony….but he would still look the same…and he would fit the AMHR standard of perfection perfectly.  Except for the fact that you know he has ASPC papers, he fits the AMHR standard of perfection perfectly now.   To be honest, there are many “ponies” that fit the standard of perfection.  Some fit the standard better than a lot of Minis—because there are a large number of minis out there that don’t fit the AMHR standard of perfection.  It’s true.

Sure, I make no secret of the fact that I like ponies better than minis….but if I could find a Mini that looks (and moves) exactly like Tim, or Reva, or Gold, or any of my others—then I would like Minis a lot better.   If these ponies were all minis then I wouldn’t care if I had ponies.  If these ponies of mine were all Minis, would I show them as Minis?  Probably not, or at least not in halter, I might show them in driving.  Why? I don’t like body clipping….I don’t like black and white pintos to be pink and grey pintos…and that’s a big reason why I won’t show AMHR.   I also don’t like the fact that AMHR doesn’t put any emphasis on movement in the line classes.  A few judges do still appreciate good movement—but many don’t bother with it because the judging requirements don’t tell them to.  

 

[MiLo Minis]

I have to say Holly that the Shetlands you have pictured here are not typical of the majority of Shetlands I am seeing placed at the AMHR shows. I wouldn't have quite so much objection if they were. What I have been seeing is the Shetlands placed best to worst over the Minis placed'best to worst and it is not because ALL the Shetlands are better conformed and meet the standards of perfection. You need to get out to a few more shows and see for yourself exactly what is going on. There aren't enough Shetlands showing as Minis in Manitoba for you to be able to form a true opinion. By the way I showed a horse in AMHR this year for the entire season without clipping him amd he did quite well so that is a poor excuse - there is nothing in the AMHR rules saying you must body clip.

 

[Minimor]

I am fully aware that sometimes unclipped horses have a fair shot--but sometimes I do believe it depends on who is judging. In any case, I do not like how minis are shown, and make no bones about it--it isn't what I want to do.

 

[dreaminmini]

I agree on the judging with you Holly. It definitely needs improvement and I wholeheartedly agree with form and function. Movement should definitely play a part in the judging. Body clipping, I can take or leave. I know some people go a little crazy and I too hate to see them all pink from being clipped to short and if at an outside show they can burn so easily. Feel sorry for those horses.

Holly, you like ponies, that is great. Just like some love Friesians or they love Gypsy Vanners or they love Thoroughbreds. That is a person's preference and there is nothing wrong with that. But they are what they are. For you to say "but if I could find a Mini that looks (and moves) exactly like Tim, or Reva, or Gold, or any of my others—then I would like Minis a lot better." It is like saying I love a good Thoroughred but I would love a Friesian too if it looked like a Thoroughbred. They are what they are and you like what you like and I like what I like.

The problem with the mini standard of perfection is that it is for a general horse the same as all the other horse breeds. Good conformation is good conformation. The Arabian has played a part in a lot of the breeding of many horse breeds but yet would you enter an Arabian in a Morgan show. They are both horses, the arabian generally fits the standard so why can't the Arabian also be registered as a Morgan and compete in Morgan shows??? The mini needs it's own more specific standard but that is not gonna happen in our lifetime. But if you agree to call a mini a horse and a Shetland a pony there are still differences even if they fit in the larger picture. And with the judges predisposed to place the Shetlands higher the mini horse is on it's way out and that is very sad.

 

[Minimor]

No, it really is not like saying I would like a Friesen if it looked more like a Thoroughbred….it is a matter of conformation. (I happen to like both Friesens and Thoroughbreds and have no interest in having both breeds look the same! )  I like a horse with a good long hip….there are very few minis that have what I consider a good length of hip, combined with the hip angles I like…few that have the shoulder angulation (though that is less rare than the good length of hip) especially combined with a really well set on neck….and certainly rare for that neck to have a genuine proportionate length with an extremely clean throatlatch that can really set up in the bridle…with balance between front and rear.   And few Minis have the fluidity of movement that I like.  I don’t care what breed it is, I want a fluid movement and many of the minis just aren’t there yet.  Yes, some are very good moving but there is still a touch of ‘pony gaited’ in most of them—though that would surely disappear if they were truly horse-proportioned….horses in miniature.  People get too hung up on the name Miniature Horse.  It seems the mini has become their vision of a “horse” while a Shetland, since it is a pony, is their definition of “pony”; it is apparently impossible to recognize that an American Shetland may be more like a scaled down horse than is the Mini that it’s being compared to.   

When I make a determination of what looks most like a miniature horse, I think horse in miniature, meaning a small horse that grown up to full size would look like a horse and not an oversized pony—and I do think that many of the people who brag about their miniature Arabians would be quite appalled to see what their “perfect Arabians in miniature” looked like if they were 15.2 hh.  If it is a horse it should have the build and proportions of a horse, not just the name horse—it matters not which breed of horse it compares to, just so long as it is truly horse proportioned.  Some Minis are close, many are not so close.  Sadly I have heard owners of very dwarfy looking horses claim long and loud about how their Miniature is a horse because it has horse proportions—people truly do not recognize what is…or isn’t…in a name.  Yes, some Shetlands look very pony as in old fashioned pony….but others are very much ‘horse’.   I do see dual registered ponies who are indistinguishable from single registered Miniatures, and I have seen single registered Minis that could be taken for Shetlands, though not the more extreme sort of Shetland.   I simply cannot agree with anyone who says that Shetlands do not meet the standard of AMHR.

But, this is getting away from the original discussion I think.  My apologies.

 

[Yaddax3]

My experience could be different than yours, but ,,,

It is my experience that the people who howl the most about over-showing a horse are people who are losing to the "over-shown horse."

We have been accused of doing it, mostly by trainers who need to win to keep clients happy.

We have a few minis we've shown in a dozen or more classes. And we have quite a few minis we show in only a few classes.

We know which of our horses have the physical and mental makeup to handle a large number of classes, and we know which ones can't.

Maybe it's just me, but if a horse is winning his final classes at a show and appears to be getting stronger as the show goes on, he's not being over-shown. He's showcasing his talent and skill-set.

If this rule passes, we will show in mini and pony classes with horses equipped to handle it.

As for Dr. Taylor's suggestion of qualifying for Congress, I'm all for it. That said, it becomes even more important to allow double-registered ASPC-AMHR horses to be exhibited as minis and ponies in shows that offer both or many people could face the hardship of qualifying their horse(s) at AMHR and ASPC shows on different dates and locations.

 

[mdegner]

Trying to be careful here not to offend our current director, I think she does a great job, but I would vote for you in a heartbeat. I share your concern and frustration and there are others who haven't consumed the Koolaid yet either. It's probably too late, seems the die is cast, but you never know.....

 

[LaVern]

I guess if it passes it will be the final straw for me. I will keep raising my Straight Minis, but there is no use, doing the Futurity. Joe called last year to tell me that we were again the largest in entries. Can you imagine that? No more for me. Our horses have won the Supreme Futurity a couple times, but it isn't likely it will happen again.

I will keep registering a few Straight R Minis, not many. Just do it for my self and North Dakota people.

I wonder how long the mini owners will be willing to support the shows for the doubles to show in. I think they will be pretty much on their own soon.

I wonder how long they will be able to afford Tulsa to show the doubles on their own.

On the other hand if I were a director, I could change everything and turn this thing around. You see I can sling it with the best of them.

 

[mdegner]

The next 2-4 years will be interesting. There will be no horses bred at our house until we see how this plays out.

 

[dreaminmini]

We could band those who havent consumed the Koolaid into our own registry. Though now I have written it maybe I might have been consuming my own special concoction. LOL

 

[JMS Miniatures]

My experience could be different than yours, but ,,,

It is my experience that the people who howl the most about over-showing a horse are people who are losing to the "over-shown horse."

We have been accused of doing it, mostly by trainers who need to win to keep clients happy.

We have a few minis we've shown in a dozen or more classes. And we have quite a few minis we show in only a few classes.

We know which of our horses have the physical and mental makeup to handle a large number of classes, and we know which ones can't.

Maybe it's just me, but if a horse is winning his final classes at a show and appears to be getting stronger as the show goes on, he's not being over-shown. He's showcasing his talent and skill-set.

If this rule passes, we will show in mini and pony classes with horses equipped to handle it.

As for Dr. Taylor's suggestion of qualifying for Congress, I'm all for it. That said, it becomes even more important to allow double-registered ASPC-AMHR horses to be exhibited as minis and ponies in shows that offer both or many people could face the hardship of qualifying their horse(s) at AMHR and ASPC shows on different dates and locations.

I personally would vote in for this if it would allow qualification for Congress. Like Dr. Taylor I wouldn't hold the same standard qualification like you would for the miniatures. Just have one show qualifier. Doesn't even matter how many judges there are, just one show. The only reasons I see people have listed that they want to see this rule pass is because they want to see shetland classes fill up, to see competition, and they hope the dual horses will help with that. Well it may or it may not, but having to qualify for Congress will bring in those ponies. So unless it is rewritten at Convention I'm still not for it.

I also agree with you saying that over doing the ponies and showing them in so many classes is not a good argument. Who can say its over doing it with one horse and not the other. The owners know what the pony can and cannot do. Unless it gets really out of hand it's not a good argument against this ruling.

The one thing that really have to ask ourselves is how will this affect AMHR in the long run? I know some believe that this ruling will not affect AMHR at all but it does. If this ruling passes what's the incentive for AMHR only breeders to continue to breed for quality miniatures that aren't shetland breeding.

 

[Lewella]

Thank you Mary.

Just a note for Renee - the AMHR bylaws are very specific on when a Director can abstain from a vote. There are very few times when a Director can abstain and if they do wish to abstain they have to disclose to the Board why they are abstaining and they must have a really, really good reason that the President and the rest of the Board accepts as a good reason.

As for qualifying for Congress - I can't support it unless more ASPC shows are available across the country. There are results recorded for 60 ASPC shows in 2012 vs. results recorded for 113 AMHR shows in 2012. If all those AMHR shows voluntarily added ASPC classes sure, I could support qualifying for Congress, but we can't force shows to add ASPC classes.