AMHR Foundation Miniature Halter

[JMS Miniatures]

Ok this is just something I wrote up in 10 mins. It is defintelly not a final draft. I would like to submit a proposal and see this be voted at next years Convention. This post is not meant to tear the idea down, its meant for support and better ideas on how it can be written. If you don't support it simply vote no. Thank you.

AMHR FOUNDATION MINIATURE HALTER

The Foundation Miniature Halter horse should present more bone and substance. To be judged 70% on conformation and breed type, and 30% on quality and manners. The horse is to perform the same way as all halter classes. You will walk up to the judge and trot on pass them to the direction of your ring steward. The horse must stand squared, not stretched or will be penalized. It is encouraged to show the Foundation Miniature Halter horse as natural as possible. Razoring and clipping of lashes to be severely penalized. The Foundation Miniature Halter horse cannot crossover into other open halter classes with the exception of youth and amateur, group halter classes, color, and performance.

 

The Foundation division is meant to preserve the AMHR Miniature Horse linage. The Foundation Miniature Horse must have 4 generations of AMHR registered horses of no ASPC lines. Once researched by the AMHR/ASPC office if the horse is eligible he/she will receive a seal on their papers. The horse must have the seal on the papers in order to show in the Foundation halter classes. Under horses are no taller then 34" and Over horses are no taller then 38".

 

AMHR OPEN FOUNDATION MINIATURE HALTER STALLIONS, UNDER

AMHR OPEN FOUNDATION MINIATURE HALTER STALLIONS, OVER

AMHR OPEN FOUNDATION MINIATURE HALTER MARES, UNDER

AMHR OPEN FOUNDATION MINIATURE HALTER MARES, OVER

AMHR OPEN FOUNDATION MINIATURE HALTER GELDINGS, UNDER

AMHR OPEN FOUNDATION MINIATURE HALTER GELDINGS, OVER

AMHR OPEN FOUNDATION MINIATURE HALTER MARE/GELDING, UNDER*

AMHR OPEN FOUNDATION MINIATURE HALTER MARE/GELDING, OVER*

*Only as an option if shows want to combine mare and gelding halter.

 

These classes are only optional at local shows but are mandatory for all Area and National shows. These classes are Non-Rated.

I have only made a class list for open halter. I feel ike it needs a kick start and this will help by not adding a whole bunch more classes to our already lengthy show bill. I also recommend making them Non-Rated to see if these classes would gain interest. Just like they did with the Western the first year was non-rated and since the classes were positive they made them rated. Any suggestions you have would be great, any help I can get would be appreciated.

 

[Riverrose28]

I like your proposal, but would like to have the horse judged 100% on conformation, and to see the part removed about horse should have more bone/substance, and I also would remove the wording breed type. That way it opens it up to more horses. JMO

 

[ohmt]

I agree with riverrose-the majority of my horses that would qualify for foundation in every other aspect are fine featured. Of course I have a few mares with a little more substance, but they are now in their late teens/early 20's and I would not want to show them. They're too busy enjoying retirement

This filly is one with at least 8 generations of AMHR only horses and since she'll mature tall A, would love to show her in foundation classes, but she would not do well if she is judged on a bit more substance and bone.

Not even my appies have the substance-except for my older stallion. Both of my appy weanling colts were more refined than the shetlands foals they showed against this past summer (yes, they still have the substance for a good chest, shoulder, etc). So the way it is worded now, my AMHR only horses that my family has been breeding since the 70's would not be able to be shown in Foundation classes. This colt has more than 8 generations of AMHR only horses too-would never win in a class that judges partly on more bone and substance and yet he probably has a longer AMHR only pedigree than most minis. Refinement is just what we have always bred for.

 

[Zipper]

I think it is great that it is just going to be AMHR horses but I like the part about bone and substance as my horses are not fine featured so they dont have a chance against the fine featured

ones.

I like it no matter how it is worded glad that someone is trying to get just miniatures in classes.

 

[kaykay]

See this is the issue - very few can agree on type.

I would be for it if it stays as a true foundation which means more bone and substance. If you take that out then its really just another halter class of the same horses. The only thing it would then exclude is ASPC horses.

Where are all the people that wanted a class for their more draft type minis?

Foundation normally means to preserve an older type.

I also would not agree with no ASPC breeding. That seems like an oxymoron to me.

Also keep in mind that if you wrote this up for real it would go in the rule book. So you would have to outline how to get a seal, what it would cost etc etc.

 

[Riverrose28]

I have three types, QH/stock type, refined but no new ASPC, and some inbetween:

refined, more arab looking.

inbetween

QH type

 

[ohmt]

I think its an oxymoron too Kaykay, but I believe people want a foundation class to get rid of the shetlands that their horses can not beat in the ring currently. Too many would scream and shout if ASPC papered horses had a foundation miniature horse seal. I would be a little sad if there was a foundation division and I couldn't show in it even though my family has been breeding AMHR minis longer than most. I understand it should be about preserving older type, but the refinement in our horses didn't come recently. Have been working on it for many many years. It is preserving older type for us.

I guess this doesn't really matter that much to me though. No matter what I will have my horses out there showing, shetlands or no. My horses did just fine against them this past year and it was my first year showing. If I can do it with my horses that had no conditioning (and were little brats lol), anyone can.

 

[kaykay]

After showing in Foundation many years you will never get people to agree on what the type is and that includes judges.

Riverrose I hope you dont mind but here is how I would put your horses.

Picture 1 More fine boned type

Picture 2 foundation

Picture 3 foundation

Especially picture 3 would be foundation to me in type.

Like I said in the other thread it would make more sense to include ASPC horses that have the ASPC foundation seal.

 

[Jill]

No, thanks.

 

[Maple Hollow Farm]

I have mixed feelings about this, I am with ohmt in that most of my minis that dont have shetlands on their papers are still mixed types, some refined, some a little heavier, very few drafty though. I also have been showing against the shetland types and still doing well. My problem is I would not show this class when it is unrated as I still want to work towards my HOFs. Also once this would be HOF credited, would our points stay the same and would the foundation points be added to the ones we already have. I would just hate to have to start all over. I would rather see this as simply having the correct number of shetland/hardship-free generations rather than putting a type on it, there are many different types of Foundation miniatures. I do like the more natural part of the rule though as I really dont care for razoring and detest clipping off lashes. Just my two cents worth

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I'm sorry but I totally disagree that it should include ASPC, adding this class is the whole point. If you want it to be this way we can make this class as a class for ASPC ponies showing in AMHR make it mandatory to show in this class and let the AMHR horses have their regular classes, but of course that would never happen. This would only be for horses that have 4 generations of AMHR registered lines. If we wanted to include ASPC as well I would not vote for this.

Its sad because I thought more people would want something like this. People complaining about the shetlands that are in AMHR with the other posts but don't seem they want to come forward or just don't care. Honestly I don't think I really have anyone for this class. My one that would be was hardshipped into AMHR so he wouldn't be eligible.

This guy possibly would fit and he would qualify for this class.

This one I think would be too fined bone for this class.

I do not want to make just another halter class. The reason they created the foundation division for classics sounds very similiar to the reason why people wanted a division for the AMHR Miniatures. Nothing against the AMHR/ASPC ponies, they have defintelly brought some nice horses with awesome movement. Again if there is no interest I'll just drop it. People wanted something but they aren't responding so...

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I have mixed feelings about this, I am with ohmt in that most of my minis that dont have shetlands on their papers are still mixed types, some refined, some a little heavier, very few drafty though. I also have been showing against the shetland types and still doing well. My problem is I would not show this class when it is unrated as I still want to work towards my HOFs. Also once this would be HOF credited, would our points stay the same and would the foundation points be added to the ones we already have. I would just hate to have to start all over. I would rather see this as simply having the correct number of shetland/hardship-free generations rather than putting a type on it, there are many different types of Foundation miniatures. I do like the more natural part of the rule though as I really dont care for razoring and detest clipping off lashes. Just my two cents worth

So the most I'm seeing is not to be judged by type, I would like to get away from the refined minis for this class but I am open when it comes to type. I just don't want it to be just another halter class, thats my feeling on it.

Any new class like this must start as Non-Rated. No one would have a clue how much participation a class like this will have. I think it can be huge, but if no one participates then there is no sense in continuing it. When they begin with the WCPD they started out as Non-Rated. The first year at Nationals they decided to let it be rated and the class was greatly participated, and now its almost as big as CPD. No one knew what this class could become, some were against it, but it was much needed and this class is huge. I don't see why this class can't become the same. Halter classes are declining in entries, performance is on the rise, and the class that I've been keep repeating, the draft type, that allowed the thicker boned minis to show in halter that would normally not place in a regular halter class was the biggest class in halter at the AMHR/ASPC show if not the biggest class of the whole entire show.

If this class gets big I would like to see it of course become a rated class, and if it can receive HOF points their must be a grand championship class. But, again we need participation for this. So one step at a time.

 

[kaykay]

If this "division" is not to preserve a type than I doubt it will pass. It now sounds like a division explicitly to exclude ASPC registered minis. If so then call it what it is but that would not be a "foundation" class if there is no type to preserve.

I can only imagine the uproar if someone said add a class/division that no falabella or AMHA registered horses could enter.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

This would exclude hardshipped horses so that would be AMHA and Falabella along with ASPC.

I would prefer to have a type, but I am listening to all. I'm getting no help in promoting for this so I'm close to being done.

 

[Riverrose28]

We've had rain here for three days, a tree fell and my electric was out for awhile. Someone has said that this would require a rule change and would also require a type be presented, then with that said, more substance and bone would have to presented. I would also like to see more people respond and comment. As with most orgainizations you can't make everyone happy no matter how hard you try. Maybe this just isn't the time to propose this. I don't know, you never know unless you try.

 

[kaykay]

I seriously thought you would get a lot of response from people with the older quarter horse type minis but then again it is right before a major holiday. But if there is no type that wont help people with the true older style miniature.

I will be honest and say I dont think in a million years you could get this version passed. I had hope when I thought it was a true foundation division as I have always been in favor of that for minis.

Excluding that many horses would imo result in a very low number of people entering the classes. I cant see this ever getting through the AMHR committee much less the board.

 

[midnight star stables]

I'll just reply quick, but I am another supporter.

I don't think you "need" ASPC to be at the top, that a good horse is a good horse and will win no matter the paperwork... The problem is that there are many nice ("extreme") ASPC ponies showing in AMHR right now ("Now" being a blanket term for the past 20 years) that I completely understand others frustration. ASPC has just been around for so much longer, they have been able to refine their breeding programs.

I have a few horses that would "fit" this, and like the ASPC Foundation and AMHR WCPD classes/divisions, I can see the need and importance of this kind of thing.

Maple Hollow Farm, Yes, if a "Foundation HOF" was offered, you would have to start fresh (similar to that of current driving classes/divisions). It is not necessarily a bad thing though. Plus if you were now able to show it the "right" division, you'll likely collect HOF points quicker.

Either way, AMHR is a great club and really does offer us many great things.

 

[splash's mom]

This would exclude hardshipped horses so that would be AMHA and Falabella along with ASPC.

I would prefer to have a type, but I am listening to all. I'm getting no help in promoting for this so I'm close to being done.

I did reply to this but i put it on the other thread. Sorry

 

[ohmt]

Why can't it leave out type and go on pedigree? The miniature horse is not like other 'breeds'. There were many different types used to begin with and it is fairly new (compared to other 'breeds'). While some started off trying to breed the short stockier type mini, some were breeding for a leggier more refined type, like my great grandparents and grandparents. There are many foundation 'types' for the minis. If people insist on having a type for it, then I would not be in favor of it passing. If people want a class for their stockier type minis to show in, I would suggest that they go the route of the other thread and try to have a draft type class added.

The leopard appy colt that I posted a picture of earlier not only has 8+ generations of AMHR horses with no ASPC, but also has 8+ generations of falabella and 6 generations of AMHA. I understand not allowing horses hardshipped, but what about my colt that also has the many generations of falabella and AMHA pedigree. I would hope that wouldn't effect anything. I suppose it couldn't as that would be too difficult for the office to keep track of?

Just my thoughts. If there is going to be type, then add a type class, not a foundation class. Too many breeders that have been at it from the beginning that never bred for more substance or bone. Since miniatures are not even a breed, how CAN there be a type?

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Thanks for the responses I do appreciate it. I defintelly want to present this to the board but I want to get all the facts straight but that takes planning and everyones input with those who wants to see this pass.

My problem is I've never submitted anything before, no proposals, but its not too early to start. Realizing the holidays are coming up and all some people may be away, I just wanted some input to those who commented about the hardshipping sale topic who weren't happy with the way AMHR was heading.

My intent is not to do away with the AMHR/ASPC ponies, I do think they have helped the breed and I do like the movement they give. But those who prefer the thicker style, and prefer not to have the shetlands in their breeding programs it gives them a division where they belong in. Alot of these horses also show in the new WCPD class so I think it all comes together at the end.

Also wanted to add another reason why I chose 70% conformation and type and 30% on quality and manners is because people commented how the AMHR miniature isn't near as hot as the shetlands and the miniatures are the ideal kids horse. Agree or disagree, I personally have mixed feelings about that but anyways if AMHR breeders feel strongly about manners with the type of miniature horse they want then I feel that manners should be their. Make it 90% conformation and 10% manners for all I care but I think it needs to be count for something.