AMHS

[Ronnie]

Hello Everyone,

I posted this as a reply on the other thread but thought it worthy of reposting. This will not affect currently registered AMHA horses nor will it allow oversize horses into AMHA. It is a separate registry that will be owned by AMHA just as AMHR, American Show Pony, etc. is owned by ASPC. This should offer some great opportunities to those that choose to participate and will not affect those that choose not to. As a side note, AMHA is also considering lowering hardship fees at least temporarily (this is not a done deal but is being seriously considered).

Some may not recognize it but AMHA is truly attempting to become more "membership friendly" and address many issues that are of concern to our members. I encourage you to get involved and be part of the solutions. I would also ask if you choose not to be involved to please give us a chance and don't be part of the problems.

Below is my origianal post.

Just wanted to let you all know that I have been appointed Chairman of the new committee to investigate and propose the initial establishment of AMHS. This committee is currently being formed. I would like to address a few of the concerns that have been stated here.

This new registries purpose is not intended to compete with any existing registry as some other proposed registries might, but is intended to address and serve what many have been telling us for years is a much needed area in our industry.

While it is anticipated it will generate revenue, again that is not its sole purpose. Many, many people from both large and small farms alike have been telling AMHA for many years that we need to address the horses that oversize and lose their AMHA papers. This endeavor will hopefully give a lot of very nice horses the recognition they deserve and allow them to keep their recorded pedigree intact. It is also not intended to make everybody legitimate because we all know most of those oversize horses out there in peoples pastures will stay out there in those pastures and keep breeding under their AMHA papers. We are not under the delusion that everyone that is currently fudging will suddenly stop and send in AMHA papers to convert them to AMHS.

As for the tight height band of 34 – 36â€, that was only an initial proposal and very well may wind up being 34 -38â€. We are also not naive enough to think that this new registry will not also have some fudgers and if the max. height winds up being 38†that there won’t be some 39†horse out there in someone’s pasture. I also believe there will always be people that drive over the speed limit and if we raise it from 65 to 75 then many of the people that did drive 75 will now drive 85.

As for this just being another registry such as World Class or others that have started over the years this will not be the case. This registry will be owned by AMHA and will have the advantage of its vast data bases, years of experience, office support and guidance. It will however be a stand alone registry and will have its own bylaws, EC and most likely its own BOD.

I personally am very excited by this opportunity that is being offered to the Miniature Horse Industry and hope everyone gives it a fair chance and will take advantage of the many opportunities it will offer in the future. This is in its very infant stages of planning and nothing is set in stone so I would advise and invite everyone to get productively involved by offering any ideas you have and constructive criticism is welcome but let’s wait and see what the AMHS has to offer before starting to shoot it down. By the way, the name is not set in stone yet either but is the one we will use for now. This can and will be a major part of miniature horse future so get in on the ground floor and help make it all it can be! If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Different people of course, will have different ideas, some of which will conflict, so therefore everyone’s ideas cannot be implemented, but I guarantee you, they will be considered.

Best Regards

Ronnie Clifton

AMHA Region 3 Director

AMHS Committee Chairman

 

[Jill]

Ronnie --

Will a horse with AMHS papers bred to a horse with AMHA papers be able to have an AMHA foal result?

Jill

 

[Buckskin gal]

Although I hate to see AMHA go the direction of larger horses I do think the idea of having it enirely separate from AMHA with having its own BOD etc. is a good one. I hope this is done because as a member of AMHR I see how badly a separation is needed for the Shetland people and the Mini people with each having a BOD of their own. I hope the AMHA people continue to breed those gorgeous small ones since that is what the Standards' goal is. I do belong to AMHA and haven't found them to be unfriendly at all. Mary

 

[disneyhorse]

I would not think that AMHS horses could produce and AMHA registered horse.

In ASPC/AMHR... and AMHR horse bred to an ASPC/AMHR horse only produces an AMHR horse and can never be hardshipped into ASPC.

I think this would just allow oversize AMHA horses to still retain pedigree background, and if AMHA allows some AMHS classes then those horses would have somewhere to show as well.

Andrea

 

[MyBarakah]

My question is: Instead of adding another organsization.... why can't AMHA just ad on to thier rules and ad the taller horses?

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I posted this question on the other post but will post it here too. Is this registry only for the oversized AMHA registered miniatures or is it open to just any B size miniature?

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

I think it could really help AMHA to be honest

I would guess to AMHS horses could produce a AMHA horse no different then a ASPC horse can be hardshipped for a reasonable fee into AMHR.

Yes there will be some larger horses in AMHS but lets be honest we all know there are already 38 in AMHA reg horses and 40+ in AMHR reg horses so that really won't change much - those dishonest will always be dishonest

AMHA and AMHR are both height breeds and as long as AMHA allows hardshipping I don't see why to AMHS horses couldnt produce a AMHA horse as long as it met height requirements.

This (if it went a big higher like to 38 in) would certainly bring me back in as a member to give it a go

Ronnie as a previous member of AMHA who changed to a B size program if you have any questions you would like to ask me to help you guys get other opinions please feel free

 

[sedeh]

I think it's a great idea....and one that was needed for a while. I always thought it was silly that the horses would "lose" their pedigree just because they went over. Will AMHS have classes at AMHA shows?? Then it would be very similar to AMHR and PtHA that have both A and B mini height classes.

 

[Magic]

I've read the other thread about this, and I don't understand why there are so many people so adamantly opposed to this. I can see so many GOOD points about it, why not consider it, at least THINK about it?

It sounds like it would generate much-needed revenue, for one thing, and that is always a good thing for a business.

It wouldn't affect the "34 inch and under horses"-- they would still be AMHA registered, which the new ones would NOT be.

Why not keep an open mind, and find out what would be involved, before shooting it down?

 

[rabbitsfizz]

How will it generate revenue- ??

You see this is where I am getting confused already.

If it is separate from the AMHA how is it any different from the WCMHR, and how will any revenue it generates affect the AMHA??

If it is part of the AMHA then it is the same as the "R" register "B" size horse, isn't it??

Which is what people have been asking for for ages, haven't they??

BUT as people are already saying, it does not help to raise the bar to 36" or 38"- as Tony said, why not 40"??

Why not 14.2hh??

BECAUSE then you would have people with 14.3hh horses cheating to get them in the 14.2hh classes (Believe me this is my area I KNOW about this!!!)

If you set the bar at 36" you will have people with 37" horses and so on ad nauseum.

I can see the lure of setting up a "B" registry but really it is making everything SO complicated.

Why not just have a side register.

Over horses go on the side register.

Any foals registered and "under" at maturity can go back in the main register.

Why make it so hard???

 

[Buckskin gal]

After reading all the posts from the other thread I have to say that I would hope AMHA does not create a registry for the over 34" horses. Although I don't exclusive breed for the 34" and under I do think the people who have worked so hard in getting that "miniature" horse needs to have the AMHA registry stay exclusive to the 34" and under. A new registry for the culls [those who don't fit the AMHA Standard] is not for the betterment of breeding what AMHA people have worked hard for. Why do people who deal only with AMHR/ASPC even care what goes on in AMHA? So many left because they wanted only the larger ones now they want input into the smaller ones? JMO Mary

 

[joylee123]

I stated this on the other thread;

My 2 cents worth is.... Instead of starting a new registry with a new name ect... why not go back to the way AMHA did it years ago. They used to have oversize foundation stock listed on their paperwork if they were oversized. Why not do something along those lines where the AMHA horse that goes over 34 is sent different colored paperwork with oversize breeding stock stamped on the paperwork. That way you wouldn't lose pedigree, the horse obviously wouldn't be shown but you also wouldn't lose that horse from the gene pool. I know some folks out there are saying to yank them from your breeding program, but not all horses who go over are from large stock. I've had horses with 30 inch pedigrees(Brewer Bred horses) go 35"on me and had to yank their papers and just retained the "R" paperwork and some of those mare that went slightly over never produced an over 33 inch foal.

Also said was something about those who have the money feel the rules don't apply to them. Well from what I've seen over the almost twenty years in the industry is it's not the folks with the money that lose when the horse goes over, it's the little guy who has spent their budget trying to attain the best horse they can and it goes over and they've lost their investment and dream :no:

Anyhow flame away

:

 

[chandab]

Why not just have a side register.

Over horses go on the side register.

Any foals registered and "under" at maturity can go back in the main register.

Why make it so hard???

I like this idea, it makes sense and sounds simple to implement. [Kind of like APHAs breeding stock division (they have Paint parents, but didn't get the color - their foals if they are colored can be regular registry).]

 

[Amy]

I didn't see the other thread(what was the heading on it?)

BUT as an AMHA member -- what do the letters AMHS stand for ??

When does this come into effect?

I was at Little King sale a couple of years ago when they were attempting to interest AMHA members in this same sort of thing. THere was a meeting that we attended at that time. Robin had many good pnts -- but if you have an over sized AMHA horse-- why not just put it into AMHR?? How many registries do we need for the very same thing?

I guess I wasn't interested then & so am not very much now either. AMHA lost my interest years ago when they changed the rules so that you had to "qualify" to attend a Regional (at that time) show. SInce we do not have any AMHA shows in Ontario, you could not qualify.

Yes, they have since done away with that requirement I believe, but is also easier to keep people who are currently showing at your shows than it is to get them back after they have left. My personal experience anyway. We loved the Regional shows & The Julep Cup show & are very proud of the Julep Cup we have, but that is now a long time ago.

We now show AMHR & go to the National Show level & are quite happy with the way that has turned out.

It is very hard to turn the clock backwards.

 

[Walbon Acres]

I like joylee123's idea. I have a Boogerman dtr. that has gone over and I have had her papers voided! But I would really like the idea that if she had "Foundation" stock papers and she had a foal that stayed under 34" she could be registered with AMHA and not have to be hardshipped. I know that there are also small horses that have horses that go over and those foals can be registered as foals and then if they go over the papers are voided. It would be really nice if AMHA could go back to the foundation stock horses. It certainly didn't ruin the breed (registry) before so I don't it will now.

 

[hhpminis]

Why do people who deal only with AMHR/ASPC even care what goes on in AMHA? So many left because they wanted only the larger ones now they want input into the smaller ones?

Mary, I am going to answer this for myself and I think many others that breed the ASPC/AMHR horse may feel the same way. It has never been my intention of not supporting AMHA. In fact, my desire to breed the ASPC/AMHR horse started with the desire to improve my 34 and under AMHA breeding stock. It is not something that happens overnight but it is happening slowly that more and more ASPC/AMHR horses are being hardshipped into AMHA. Many breeders were looking for something missing in the breed, (in their opinion) and found what they were looking for in the Shetland. I have 3 that I plan on hardshipping when they reach age.

That would be the reason that many that may seem to you to deal only with ASPC/AMHR care what goes on. I never left AMHA, just at this time I am breeding more AMHR horses than AMHA. I maintain my membership and support the registry with any eligible foal that I can.

 

[Lauralee]

I am in favor of an AMHA-based registry that would allow oversized horses to continue as breeding stock.

However I would NOT pay an additional membership fee to be able to register my oversize horses. I would simply let them remain with AMHR, as they already are.

I also would NOT pay additional fees to take an oversize horse to permanent or maintain them in the registry.

There are enough fees as it is and I have reached my limit with AMHA.

I am also in favor of changing the way the horses are measured, but I don't see that happening any time soon. They should be measured like every other equine in the world, at the top of the wither.

I AM quite impressed though, that this is being proposed, and that AMHA is finally realizing it needs to be more user friendly. I'll have to sit back and see how this plays out. I am very encouraged by this first step in the right direction, towards pleasing the clientele.

 

[Buckskin gal]

But I wasn't referring to people like you who have not left AMHA, only those who have. I too have both AMHR and AMHA horses ...love them all. I see nothing wrong with a person like you that was looking for more of what the Shetland has to go that route. My concern is for the people who don't necessarily want to go that route and have stayed true to breeding the small ones and improving them without adding the Shetlands. Maybe you misundestood. I started with just AMHR B's and have gone to liking the looks of the AMHA horses as well....and I don't see anything wrong with that either. You think the AMHA stock needed something the Shetlands had but others don't feel that way. Iyt is all about ones own likes and dislikes and shouldn't be about that one is better than the other as I understood you to say previously. Maybe this will be as clear as mud to you aslo. :bgrin Glad to hear you aren't one of those who dropped out of AMHA and are supportive of them. One thing I do want to stress, there really wasn't anything wrong with many of the AMHA minis, according to many of the breeders within AMHA. Some just wanted something different and found it in the Shetalnds, so I have been told.

: Mary

Why do people who deal only with AMHR/ASPC even care what goes on in AMHA? So many left because they wanted only the larger ones now they want input into the smaller ones?

Mary, I am going to answer this for myself and I think many others that breed the ASPC/AMHR horse may feel the same way. It has never been my intention of not supporting AMHA. In fact, my desire to breed the ASPC/AMHR horse started with the desire to improve my 34 and under AMHA breeding stock. It is not something that happens overnight but it is happening slowly that more and more ASPC/AMHR horses are being hardshipped into AMHA. Many breeders were looking for something missing in the breed, (in their opinion) and found what they were looking for in the Shetland. I have 3 that I plan on hardshipping when they reach age.

That would be the reason that many that may seem to you to deal only with ASPC/AMHR care what goes on. I never left AMHA, just at this time I am breeding more AMHR horses than AMHA. I maintain my membership and support the registry with any eligible foal that I can.

 

[hhpminis]

But I wasn't referring to people like you who have not left AMHA

Thank you Mary. I do feel very strongly that we need to figure out how to make AMHA a viable flourishing registry. I also find no problem with breeders who feel they have everything they want in their herd, in fact I admire them as they have found their satisfaction.

I am just not so sure that breeders, small and large alike can afford the expense or keep up with all the paperwork involved with another registry. As it is, we as small equine breeders already have not only the AMHA, AMHR, ASPC, then we add Pinto, WCMHC, etc etc. I for one can barely keep the 3 main ones straight as to when and what I need to send in.

What I would rather see, if their truly is a need and want by the majority of the membership for such a thing, is an extension of the AMHA, not a new registry, one like before where the oversize horses become breeding stock and do not lose their pedigree. I think this is the major complaint that once we have to hardship a horse his heritage becomes UNKNOWN. If this would be a step towards this than I would consider it to maybe be a good thing. What I am worried about with a new registry that it is going to be an added expense to create it and frankly, we dont have the spare change to do that. We truly do not have it!

If a presentation could be made that would show how we can start this with no expense to the existing registry than lets discuss it.

 

[Buckskin gal]

Guess my biggest concern is if AMHA's Standard doesn't recognize any horse over 34" as a Miniature, and their objective is to breed for the smallest most perfect horse, than it is counter productive to use the oversized horses for breeding. I would rather see the pedigree go with a horse if it is hardshipped from AMHA into AMHR...would make a lot more sense. On the other hand if the majority of AMHA members want to change their Standard and allow the bigger ones, they may as well go the route of AMHR and have two classes of Miniatures and that would also bring in more money for them. I am only one of those newer members and I sure would like to hear the thoughts of the people who have been AMHA members for a long time....they are the ones that have put the time into their breeding programs for those small ones. Mary

But I wasn't referring to people like you who have not left AMHA

Thank you Mary. I do feel very strongly that we need to figure out how to make AMHA a viable flourishing registry. I also find no problem with breeders who feel they have everything they want in their herd, in fact I admire them as they have found their satisfaction.

I am just not so sure that breeders, small and large alike can afford the expense or keep up with all the paperwork involved with another registry. As it is, we as small equine breeders already have not only the AMHA, AMHR, ASPC, then we add Pinto, WCMHC, etc etc. I for one can barely keep the 3 main ones straight as to when and what I need to send in.

What I would rather see, if their truly is a need and want by the majority of the membership for such a thing, is an extension of the AMHA, not a new registry, one like before where the oversize horses become breeding stock and do not lose their pedigree. I think this is the major complaint that once we have to hardship a horse his heritage becomes UNKNOWN. If this would be a step towards this than I would consider it to maybe be a good thing. What I am worried about with a new registry that it is going to be an added expense to create it and frankly, we dont have the spare change to do that. We truly do not have it!

If a presentation could be made that would show how we can start this with no expense to the existing registry than lets discuss it.