AMHR Draft Type Halter Class

[disneyhorse]

Would docked tails be allowed? Would they be shown with the white leather bridles that drafts are typically shown in? What about mane rolls/flowers/tail buns?

How close to the "real deal" are we looking at?

The miniature horse strives to be a replica of a horse in miniature. So, are we stereotyping or going for reality?

Andrea

 

[midnight star stables]

VERY interesting and "hot" topic...

I am one who likes the idea... However, I do think there are TWO different ideas here. One being a "Foundation" halter class, and a "Draft" halter or in-hand class.

In reference to the "Draft" class, I love Bullockcorner's thoughts of making it a "in-hand" class, and having the horses work the rail, wear the braids and draft style halters - Sounds great! It would be like the NR Roadster-In-Hand, and Model classes.

The "Foundation" halter would open a huge can of worms. Do you want a new division? Or just a class identical to Model? Would it be for just A's and B's, or mares, stallions and geldings in both A's and B's? I personally like this class concept a little less, just because I see ASPC's Foundations, and they are not what people here are thinking. Very extreme and flashy horses are winning the Foundation classes there.

Just my 2 cents. I voted Yes.

 

[Riverrose28]

Maybe I misunderstood the op too. I was thinking of halter, but don't want any minis that look like a shire or belgion. One point I would like to make. take it or leave it. If Boones Buckaroo was taken to this years National AMHR show, he wouldn't have placed. Sadly to say he is foundation type, not what the judges are placing now! since he doesn't have that ASPC head and neck he would have gotten the gate if no one knew his name. shame but reality. I was speculating on foundation and the op was saying draft, so I'll shut up!

 

[AshleyNicole]

Maybe I misunderstood the op too. I was thinking of halter, but don't want any minis that look like a shire or belgion. One point I would like to make. take it or leave it. If Boones Buckaroo was taken to this years National AMHR show, he wouldn't have placed. Sadly to say he is foundation type, not what the judges are placing now! since he doesn't have that ASPC head and neck he would have gotten the gate if no one knew his name. shame but reality. I was speculating on foundation and the op was saying draft, so I'll shut up!

I think thats what I was thinking as well. I agree with your point, more and more you need a ASPC bred horse to have a chance at an AMHR show in halter. I'll shut up as well lol since we aren't talking about foundation really which is what I'd like to see.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I wouldn't want to make this class difficult

I think at this time if they add it it would just be a draft type class, all ages, one under, one over. Now at the show they had them all braided like they were going into a draft halter class. I was just picturing ok type, just the draft build, not a draft halter class. So I just showed my horse like a regular class, he was the only one not braided and still managed to pull a 4th. I'm picturing a draft type more of the older style, thicker boned, more of a performance halter class I guess you can say. I have a mini that is a qh built but I would not put in this class as I don't think he belongs in it and AMHR isn't going for the really refined boned horses like that are placing in AMHA.

I think to get more people interest in this class we need to make it easier for everyone and not make it mandatory that you have to show in a draft driving class. However maybe down the road, if this class gets HUGE as I think it can maybe make it mandatory. But IMO if they want to keep it as a draft type vs a draft halter class its just another halter class. I certaintly don't want to make a new divison. If its big perhaps make it a rated class, but I don't think we need to have so many different classes.

I've always wanted to add a foundation division for the minis but so many were against it so I let it go, but I'll keep dreaming for it

 

[disneyhorse]

Why does it have to be a "DRAFT" type? Why not have "Arabian" type halter classes? "Saddlebred" type classes?

Are you all thinking "Sport Horse" perhaps? Would that be a more correct handling of the "TYPE" you are looking for? Or perhaps "Warmblood" type? "Stock Horse" type?

Currently, there is no one "type" that is specified in halter that the miniature horse is supposed to be... so how do you start to break it all down?

Andrea

 

[Riverrose28]

Why does it have to be a "DRAFT" type? Why not have "Arabian" type halter classes? "Saddlebred" type classes?

Are you all thinking "Sport Horse" perhaps? Would that be a more correct handling of the "TYPE" you are looking for? Or perhaps "Warmblood" type? "Stock Horse" type?

Currently, there is no one "type" that is specified in halter that the miniature horse is supposed to be... so how do you start to break it all down?

Andrea

You're right there is no breed standard or type to the miniature horse. Problem is there are alot of the old fashioned mini', buckaroo type, that don't stand a snowballs chance in h___ of placing at the National level. Mini's can't compete against the modern mini. I do think In my opinion that a standard is evolving, but what happens to the others? Now I'm talking about foundation, not draft, heaven forbid we should have minis that look like a belgion, but what do the mini people do when their minis look like a mini not a shetland? Do they not show? If they show do they place? I'm talking about halter not performance. What happens to all the horses that don't look like shetlands? Just something to think about. any way I'll attach a picture of my Grand sons mini, he is 34 & 1/2"s tall he can show, but can't win against the shetland look a likes.

This horse got 10 in model and nothing else, this type of horse can't compete against the ASPC/AMHR horse.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

We don't need a arabian type or saddlebred type as thats whats winning already.

I would be perfectly fine calling it performance halter, and make it to where you have to show in a performance class to compete. But to my original question I'm just talking about the class that was being presented at the show this weekend was draft type halter, and have it as a non rated class.

AMHR Draft Type Halter, Under

AMHR Draft Type Halter, Over

Make it available to anybody. You can cross over if you show in regular halter. No championship classes involved. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Jill]

I doubt this is going to go over well with the audience, but it sounds to me like we're talking about a "can't place well in the real halter classes" class.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Well to each their own. I just thought it would be a fun class to those of us who still have the older foundation built horses. It was nice too see a big class full of foundation built minis, and not to mention being the biggest halter class of the show.

My intention for this topic wasn't meant to take anything away from the regular halter classes. It also wasn't meant to be oh my horse can't place because of these darn shetlands. I was picturing it like what they have done for Wester CPD. People have said when they first introduced the western driving that we are taking a step back, these are just horses that can't place in country. Guess what same thing with this class. Driving horses have got better, our use to be country horses had no place to go, so they created western to keep people into showing. The western class is now huge to almost as big as country, defintelly bigger then pleasure. So why can we do that for drivers but we can't do that for our foundation built halter horses?

Sure there will be some people not at all interested in this class, obviously, and thats fine, same for some who aren't interested in western. But there are people out there that like both, and I think would be very interested in having a class like this.

 

[Riverrose28]

Jill, I don't think it's a matter of the "real" halter classes. What you're talking about is the "current" halter classes -- minis that are either (quite frankly) Shetland horses (in the AMHR) -- bred for that certain look, movement and fire or those minis that are 'wanta-be's such as the extremely refined.

I, believe, instead, that it is a matter of taste -- those that prefer the look of the horses that showed even just a few years ago -- BEFORE Shetlands entered the picture (again, in the AMHR). To many (myself included), the horses of just a few years ago (or many years ago) still look like big horses in miniature -- but to clarify, I am still NOT talking about the 'extreme' show horses.

I choose not to argue the point, but rather, I believe as it is a registry of 'many owners' -- and EVERY opportunity should be made to allow ALL members to show the type of horses they prefer. Therefore, it's not the 'real' vs the 'foundation' miniatures -- rather a class for each type.

JMHO ~~ Diane at Castle Rock

Amen! you said it so well!

 

[Jill]

Yeah, I don't want to argue either, Diane. It's easier to just share sincere opinions. Good minis without ASPC blood do still win. I'm happy with halter being what I think it has always been -- the class that showcases the best of the breed. We each decide what classes and what wins are personally meaningful to us as owners, enthusiasts, and breeders.

 

[Riverrose28]

At the risk of being flamed, I've been to Nationals in the last five years, I'm not talking about AMHA Worlds witch is altogether different, look at the winning horses, all ASPC/AMHR, they win at Congress then at Nationals the foundation mini's may place in performance and a few in youth or as ours that I submitted a photo of but not Champion level, it has nothing to do with conformation, it has to do with the look. As I've said before I've seen horses place that toe out in front over horse with straight legs, and my horse were not it the classes, it was the look, the head and neck. the foundation type mini is being fazed out. What is to become of these horses? I've been saying for years I need to jump on the band wagon with ASPC but havn't had the money with this economy, why not add a foundation class or two that is NR? What is it going to hurt? It may get more people showing and spending money.

 

[Jill]

I have some recent year AMHR National champions and top tens / fives / threes from large halter classes yet own no ASPC horses. A lot of what is held out as foundation / draft / quarter horse type in minis is just not where the breed should go IMO. This isn't the first time this topic has come up on LB, and it always kind of sounds the same. I don't want to see us lower the bar.

 

[AshleyNicole]

Unless you have a very small miniature it is hard for a straight miniature to win in halter in AMHR. The horses that win Grand are Shetland miniature or have Shetland blood in them. I think when it comes down to it we want a class for our "type" horses. I have a over straight miniature that I bought from Erica and I doubt she would win in an over class in halter because she does not have the shetland look. She has nice conformation and a very nice horse but not the type to win today. I think a 32" and under straight miniature would do fine but any larger and you will have a hard time. I like the look of the shetland type but not really what I am going for, and yes we also have recent year top tens and Bare is a res. champion but that style is going out I think in AMHR. Which is why we are thinking about switching to AMHA

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

Right! And I have had National Top Tens and All-Star tops too -- but several years ago, since the economy deleted my ability to show within recent years.

What I believe, (my opinion) is that the Registry (AMHR) is a large group of paid members who support the registry as a 'whole' and therefore it should offer the 'whole registry of miniature horse owners/breeders/enthusists' an opportunity to showcase all styles of miniatures -- just like it showcases all styles/types of Shetlands.

To me, it's not 'lowering the bar' -- it is showing the variety of miniature horses -- each being unique -- not one style better than the other. But again -- no arguement intended -- just clarification of my opinion.

~~Diane at Castle Rock

Exactly my thoughts! If we can have FOUR divisions for the ponies, why not two for the Minis? Some like Classics, others prefer the look of Moderns, but they are still Shetlands. Same with the Minis.

 

[ohmt]

I would LOVE if a foundation halter class was offered. I think there would be a lot of people VERY surprised at how large the class sizes would be. I could see a lot of people bringing out some of their retired show horses for another run.

Would love to show this little guy in it:

He's not as refined and 'stretchy' as the horses winning in AMHR today, but he is very beautiful and very well put together.

 

[Jill]

I understand what you're saying, Diane, but my opinion is as I stated before.

One of the great things about showing minis is there are so many different ways they can currently compete.

 

[Shaladar]

Right! And I have had National Top Tens and All-Star tops too -- but several years ago, since the economy deleted my ability to show within recent years.

What I believe, (my opinion) is that the Registry (AMHR) is a large group of paid members who support the registry as a 'whole' and therefore it should offer the 'whole registry of miniature horse owners/breeders/enthusists' an opportunity to showcase all styles of miniatures -- just like it showcases all styles/types of Shetlands.

To me, it's not 'lowering the bar' -- it is showing the variety of miniature horses -- each being unique -- not one style better than the other. But again -- no arguement intended -- just clarification of my opinion.

~~Diane at Castle Rock

I agree. It sadly will probably never happen, but I agree. If we want to show at Halter, why should we be "forced" to buy "Shetlands, shetland type, etc."? I know, I know, several people say it is the breed "evolving". Well, "evolving" isn't always a good thing. I , and I am sure others, much prefer the look of , well I guess the "foundation"? Mini, of just a few years ago. What is currently winning in the Halter pen are wonderful, lovely horses, and I greatly admire them, but I prefer a different "type". I'm a QH person thru and thru....LOL. I've already decided that if I want to continue to show , it will have to be in the performance area. (which is why we haven't shown for 2 years)

I think a "foundation", "performance" or whatever it should be called, class would be great. Well, it would be great until the winners of the height classes decide to show in it to get another "win".

Just my opinion. And yes, I've only been breeding (very sparingly) and showing Miniatures for about 17 years, so I haven't been around as long as some of you. And I still have some of my original horses, one which is a Reserve World Champion and wouldn't even get a glance these days. But I still think he's wonderful.

Very interesting idea.

Now, please note that I have not said anything against what is currently winning. I think they are lovely horses, so please, please don't twist my words.

Sue

 

[ohmt]

Thanks Diane! He is just a little guy at 27.25" so I plan on showing him next year in the 28" and under senior halter classes regardless. I just think it would be fun to show him in a foundation class too as that is more of the type he is-maybe he could finally beat out some of his taller counterparts

I am actually more for the taller, shetland type and I will most likely be sharing some 'news' here in the next couple of months, but I also like a correct horse no matter what type. I think it's why I have so many horses! lol