AMHR Foundation Miniature Halter

[ohmt]

This is a horrible picture, but for some reason I don't have any others except for head shots. This mare is a 33.5" AMHR only mare that would qualify for the Foundation seal twice over. She is actually appaloosa bred top and bottom. I showed her this last summer pulled right from the pasture. She is a 6 year old broodmare that has never been conditioned or sweated. She took a Reserve Grand at her first show where she measured into the over division because the floor was slippery and she was very scared and.hunched.

 

[ohmt]

Oh shucks-my phone posted too early

Here is the mare:

She was the only non-ASPC registered mare in her class and she did just fine. An all appy bred mare taking reserve Grand against shetlands. My point with this post is that anyone can go out there and win, shetland or no, although rereading I did terrible lol.

Attitude plays a big part though I hope no matter what people will still keep showing.

 

[Riverrose28]

Oh shucks-my phone posted too early

Here is the mare:

She was the only non-ASPC registered mare in her class and she did just fine. An all appy bred mare taking reserve Grand against shetlands. My point with this post is that anyone can go out there and win, shetland or no, although rereading I did terrible lol.

Attitude plays a big part though I hope no matter what people will still keep showing.

I think she is lovely, but did you show her at Nationals?

 

[kaykay]

Just keep in mind that any proposal will go through the correct committee first (Im pretty sure this would go to the AMHR committee) to see if it even makes it to convention. Then it will be voted on in the committee meeting at convention (where any member can vote on it) once it passes again there, it goes to the board.

You could ask the President to let you get a committee together to look into this before making a proposal and I highly recommend that to give you the best chance of getting it through. Its not mandatory but given that this would be a huge committment (depending on how its done)

But again I have to say I honestly feel you will not get any support for this if its just an AMHR class that excludes any hardshipped horse. My guess is the committee will feel that this is a huge amount of work that will only benefit a very small portion of people and that there would not be enough to show in it.

What people are suggesting here is much more what Lavern talked about. A designation on papers to show an all AMHR pedigree.

But keep in mind that many ASPC/AMHR horses were BORN with both sets of papers for years and years so no matter what, you will not be able to exclude all of them.

It might surprise people to know that most of the ASPC/AMHR registered horses have the foundation seal. And many of them are very much foundation body type (heavier boned and not extreme) One of my best producing ASPC/AMHR mares fits this exactly. She is all Winks breeding (remember the Winks mares way back when minis first started?) She is heavier boned but when bred to a fine boned stallion has very fine boned foals that stay very small.

Its like so many forget that the small Shetland was the backbone of the Miniature horse. I will never be able to figure out why people are in denial over that? Its so funny to me that people even still call it a fad. Its been a lot of years to be considered a fad.

So I guess Buckeroo get would be excluded? Since that is an obvious Shetland bred pedigree.

I am in no way trying to make people mad but I think so many really do not know the history of the miniature horse or the AMHR or the ASPC.

 

[ohmt]

No riverrose, last year was my first year ever showing. I went to a few shows and that was it. I know she would not have done well at Nationals. First of all, I am way too inexperienced and secondly, she was never conditioned and could use a little throatlatch sweating. In this pic she still has some winter fuzzies and the angle makes her look long in the body which she is not. She fit right in with the shetland mares she showed against, but since she is actually an A mare and got stuck in the over division, she showed against all B mares and was by far the smallest (all the mares were in the 36"-38" range). I watch Nationals every year-i know she would never place in an over division there (she wouldn't show in the over division anyway). Just trying to point out minis CAN win at shows. Now, on another note, I would love to show this mare in foundation classes. She would qualify going by pedigree and actually has a lot of old breeding. Just wouldn't fit the type-she does not have more bone/substance.

 

[ohmt]

Kaykay-i agree with you and I know the history so I hope you don't think i'm insinuating anything. My greatgrandparents started with grade shetlands that they went around and bought and then brought into the registries when it first opened. That's why we have always had taller, more pony looking mares. They ARE shetland, just don't have the papers. But, they have many many generations of our own breeding so have more generations of AMHR only needing than most (my younger horses that is). I think this thread was started because of what LaVern was saying. I didn't agree with her there either. A good horse is a good horse-why should ASPC papers matter? I think if people want a place for their heavier boned horses to compete in, then make a type class. I will not support a foundation class that has type.

 

[Jill]

I keep feeling like people are looking for a class for the horses that aren't up to par for winning or placing well in the real halter classes. I just don't see the Nationals as the right place to "show case" that kind of thing... and I'm not someone who's got AMHR/ASPC horses, so that's not why I'm saying it.

 

[Riverrose28]

I keep feeling like people are looking for a class for the horses that aren't up to par for winning or placing well in the real halter classes. I just don't see the Nationals as the right place to "show case" that kind of thing... and I'm not someone who's got AMHR/ASPC horses, so that's not why I'm saying it.

This must be one of the sub-par horses that you speak of. she is 29"s and was EAstern Regional Champion and third at Worlds, but when taken to AMHR National was given the gate in three classes. She was showing against ASPC/AMHR.

 

[kaykay]

Kaykay-i agree with you and I know the history so I hope you don't think i'm insinuating anything. My greatgrandparents started with grade shetlands that they went around and bought and then brought into the registries when it first opened. That's why we have always had taller, more pony looking mares. They ARE shetland, just don't have the papers. But, they have many many generations of our own breeding so have more generations of AMHR only needing than most (my younger horses that is). I think this thread was started because of what LaVern was saying. I didn't agree with her there either. A good horse is a good horse-why should ASPC papers matter? I think if people want a place for their heavier boned horses to compete in, then make a type class. I will not support a foundation class that has type.

No no, I knew how you meant it! Its really hard to convey what we mean in type. Wish we could all sit with some coffee and chat about it!

I did change my vote as I couldn't endorse this at all but hey if someone wants it and is willing to do the work then go for it.

Thinking on this what is really needed first is for the AMHR studbook to be closed, a type written out so that we have a real standard, then become a breed instead of a height only registry. Im honestly surprised as I truly thought years ago we would be there by now.

Wishing you all a wonderful Thanksgiving! I have to go bake pies. Yum.

 

[Jill]

This must be one of the sub-par horses that you speak of....

I did not point out any individual horse and am not going to express an opinion on any of the individuals pictured on this thread. I am expressing my honest opinion on the situation. This is the same opinion I've held out each time this type of topic has been brought up, recently and in years past. Since others always chime in with their prior (or modified) opinions, I don't mind doing so as well

 

[Sue_C.]

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

Agreed... I haven't read the other posts, so this might already of been said; but what I would consider AMHR Foundation Miniature, would be a miniature horse with no outside "blood" such as AMHA, ASPC, or any other form of hard-shipped horse within at least five generations back. Forget the bone etc...good conformation...period.

 

[Riverrose28]

I did not point out any individual horse and am not going to express an opinion on any of the individuals pictured on this thread. I am expressing my honest opinion on the situation. This is the same opinion I've held out each time this type of topic has been brought up, recently and in years past. Since others always chime in with their prior (or modified) opinions, I don't mind doing so as well

Yes, I know you didn't mention individuals, but to say "sub-par" was an insult to those of us that don't feel our horses are sub-par. With that said, I'm done with this thread, it's not going anywhere and putting me on the defensive. Have a lovely holiday.

 

[mini horse mania]

IMO-I dont think that excluding hardshipped horses is a good idea. That would knock out lots of us AMHR breeders right there. My stallion was hardshipped into AMHA and R over 10 years ago.... he sired many show champions... which in turn would mean I couldnt show any of his foals in the "foundation" class, because it wasnt way back in their pedigree. A few breeders are using offspring of those hardshipped horses as stallions and mares for their herd. Over half my herd has a hardship somewhere on the papers. Some of the best lines come from someone hardshipping.

I would consider the Foundation miniatures to be stocky, draft and QH style miniatures, larger boned, -they should stand square....basically like a western pleasure or halter QH class. I also think they should be minimally trimmed for show...not shaven...

Basically what Im saying is that there are quality draft, QH type minis that need to be shown in some kind of judged class,... I wouldnt dare show my stocky, draft looking minis at the nationals against the small, typy, refined minis....People have moved onto the "new" look in minis-which are like mini arabians. They are gorgeous, but 2 different framed horses. It would also depend on what the judge looked for as far as their tastes...

We went through the same thing with reg. boer goats- they originated from south africa as large, blocky,and meaty-which we bred for- they have been breed to be long necked and refined in the past years, and the judges liked it. When we went into the ring with a "meathouse", we were put at the back, even though we had what was considered to be "foundation stock".

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

IMO-I dont think that excluding hardshipped horses is a good idea. That would knock out lots of us AMHR breeders right there. My stallion was hardshipped into AMHA and R over 10 years ago.... he sired many show champions... which in turn would mean I couldnt show any of his foals in the "foundation" class, because it wasnt way back in their pedigree. A few breeders are using offspring of those hardshipped horses as stallions and mares for their herd. Over half my herd has a hardship somewhere on the papers. Some of the best lines come from someone hardshipping.

I would consider the Foundation miniatures to be stocky, draft and QH style miniatures, larger boned, -they should stand square....basically like a western pleasure or halter QH class. I also think they should be minimally trimmed for show...not shaven...

Basically what Im saying is that there are quality draft, QH type minis that need to be shown in some kind of judged class,... I wouldnt dare show my stocky, draft looking minis at the nationals against the small, typy, refined minis....People have moved onto the "new" look in minis-which are like mini arabians. They are gorgeous, but 2 different framed horses. It would also depend on what the judge looked for as far as their tastes...

I agree with this. I just went and looked at all of my horses papers. 30 of them. If you go by pedigree, not one qualifies for Foundation. Simply because an ancestor was hardshipped from AMHA or from unknown stock. Yet many of the older ones would be "typey" in that they are a stockier, heavier type of animal.

 

[Minimor]

The thing is—what is the foundation of AMHR? Shetlands. Yes, smaller, heavier built Shetlands than what we commonly see in the show ring now, but Shetlands nevertheless. AMHR was, after all, started by the Shetland breeders who “renamed” the smallest of their Shetland ponies. That is why some have been saying that if you’re going to have a Foundation designation for AMHR then the Shetlands should be part of it!

Then again, look how many dwarves there were in the foundation of Miniatures—so a dwarf type Mini could fit into Foundation AMHR classes?

Others are, I think, being put off of the idea by the talk about “type”. If you set up a Foundation AMHR division and then restrict it to those horses that are heavier boned, even draft in type, you are then eliminating a lot of the horses that otherwise qualify for the Foundation designation. If you set up a Foundation division and don’t mention type—then those people with heavy, draft type horses are going to feel slighted because they’re still going to find themselves competing against horses that are more refined and look somewhat like the Shetlands but don’t actually have any ASPC papers horses on their papers.

Okay, so hardshipped horses are not eligible. How about those that were never hardshipped? What about those that have been AMHR forever, as in since day one of AMHR….only those same AMHR horses never “lost” their ASPC papers. So, they are still ASPC as well as AMHR. Are you going to allow them? Or because they are ASPC they are not Foundation AMHR? How can they not be Foundation AMHR when their AMHR pedigree traces to the very beginning of AMHR? Those horses are technically more “Foundation” than the ones who have 4 generations of AMHR on their papers, but in the 5th generation have a whole row of hardshipped horses. They are every bit as “Foundation” as those who are descendants of Shetlands who had their ASPC papers thrown away when AMHR formed.

Speaking of which--did Gold Melody Boy retain his ASPC papers? If so, no Buckeroo offspring would be Foundation eligible. As I recall his dam is a GMB daughter? If GMB did not retain his Shetland papers, then I guess he would qualify as Foundation, because there are no ASPC papers to show up on the pedigree. Does that really mean anything? Does the lack of ASPC papers make GMB any less Shetland? It does, after all, seem to be common knowledge that GMB was Shetland.

 

[Sue_C.]

If what you want is a place to level the playing ground, so to speak, why not simply consider doing as the Pinto Association has always done.

Stock-type Pintos are suitable for western riding, and are typically of American Quarter Horse or Paint breeding and conformation. Stock-type Pinto ponies are of predominantly Shetland pony, Welsh pony or Quarter Horse breeding.
Hunter-type Pintos are suitable for hunt seat or sport horse styles of English riding, and are predominantly of Thoroughbred or Warmblood breeding and conformation. Hunter-type Pinto ponies are of predominantly Welsh pony, Connemara pony, or Thoroughbred breeding.

Pleasure-type Pintos are suitable for pleasure riding and are typically of Arabian, Andalusian or Morgan breeding and conformation. Pleasure-type Pinto ponies are typically of Welsh pony, Classic Shetland pony or Arabian breeding. Some of these animals, depending on aptitude, may cross over into the Saddle type category, particularly the National Show Horse.

Saddle-type Pintos display the carriage and animation of high-stepping horse breeds, and many are gaited horses typically with Saddlebred, Hackney, or Tennessee Walker breeding and conformation. Saddle-type Pinto ponies are predominantly of American Shetland, Hackney pony or American Saddlebred breeding.

 

[Sue_C.]

Then again, look how many dwarves there were in the foundation of Miniatures—so a dwarf type Mini could fit into Foundation AMHR classes?

No, as it is, and always should be, that dwarf miniatures will not be registerable...this wouldn't change that.

As for the old "AMHR was, after all, started by the Shetland breeders who “renamed” the smallest of their Shetland ponies", using that as an excuse to keep the Shetland as a "foundation" animal, let's give that a rest...if all breeds accepted ALL other breeds of their ancestors, then there would only be ONE breed of horse.

 

[Minimor]

I didn't say a dwarf would be eligible--I said dwarf type, and there are dwarf type Minis that aren't actually dwarfs...more the old type Minis that were quite common in the show ring 40-50 years ago. Perhaps that is what some call draft type--but if so then I'd rather see them show as draft type than as foundation type.

The point is, Sue, that Miniatures are not 'other breeds'. Morgans, for instance, came from a variety of other breeds--TB, narragansett pacers, Arab, some draft crosses, Friesens--but Justin Morgan was deemed to be the foundation of the breed. So, any talk of type comes down to 'looking like Justin Morgan' and the Morgan's "foundation" class is the Justin Morgan Standard class. The Miniatures don't have a specific foundation sire, nor even a list of 10 foundation sires--so their foundation is....ponies.

The more this topic is talked about the more it sounds like nothing but a combination of 1) an attempt to eliminate the vile shetlands (and the AMHA hardships) from a class/division and 2) what Jill said, create a place where horses who can't cut it in the regular open classes will have a better chance.

 

[Sue_C.]

The point is, Sue, that Miniatures are not 'other breeds'. Morgans, for instance, came from a variety of other breeds--TB, narragansett pacers, Arab, some draft crosses, Friesens--but Justin Morgan was deemed to be the foundation of the breed. So, any talk of type comes down to 'looking like Justin Morgan' and the Morgan's "foundation" class is the Justin Morgan Standard class. The Miniatures don't have a specific foundation sire, nor even a list of 10 foundation sires--so their foundation is....ponies.

As I said...it could be done similarly to the PINTO horses, and they do not have ANY specific type or "blood breeding", very much like the miniatures. You mention Morgan as having a type, but no, they no longer do, thanks to the "recent" infusion of Saddlebred blood for those wanting the bigger action, so yes, even the Morgan has different types and they are recognized as such.

I personally have nothing against the SHETLAND blood infusing the miniatures, though, if we are indeed wanting to stay a small breed, it is like going BACK in time, rather than forward...what I do NOT want to see in the miniature breed is the HACKNEY infusion. I sooo fail to understand why folks who want a small hackney, simply don't breed for them WITHIN THEIR OWN BREED, instead of trying to make other breeds look like them.

 

[disneyhorse]

Sue c... I just bought a 48" hackney pony. If they could make one like him in the height of a AMHR mini I would have bought one instead. A mini eats less, takes up less space, and has smaller vehicles to transport.

I am a lover of a horse who can break well above level.

So far, those are hard to find if not impossible to find, and thus they are extremely expensive if they are even offered for sale.

I am one who hopes that some breeders can try to create a true mini hackney!!!!!!

Not everyone wants a heavy boned mini with no knee action. Just as not everyone wants an upright refined mini with a lot of knee action.

I wish everyone could simply strive for embracing different types without tearing the type they don't like down.

The wide availability of mini types is what I've always found to be one of the strong points.

Andrea