Sorry this is so long, I have been thinking about this idea since I first got into Minis years ago, and with all the talk of AMHS and now an Appendix registry, I thought it might be time to find out what others think of this proposal... The emphasis on what I have written is on the AMHS, as that was the proposal that was being put forward, but I think most of my thoughts apply to the Appendix idea as well...
I am opposed the AMHS as it is proposed, and I don't feel that the Appendix idea is the right answer either. I do not think that the AMHA needs to start a 'new' registry for 34-38" horses. Recognizing horses over 34" as 'miniature' horses goes against the stated charter of the AMHA.
I seen no compelling reason why AMHA should start a registry by going outside of its own gene-pool to allow horses from other registries and those that are unregistered with totally unknown pedigrees into our registry that has so long been associated with only 34†and under equines? Doing so would mean a major change in the focus of the Association, and I think it would do more to promote other Registries that it would help our own. Yes, it would be a new source of income, but I don't think it is the best way that could be available.
I believe that if AMHA has to support an entirely new and separate registry, such as AMHS, it might end up increasing our expenses, eating into whatever revenue the new registry would generate. Yes, the gross revenues would increase with the addition of AMHS registrations, but more registrations increase the workload for the office staff, so it would be necessary to increase office staff to handle the tasks, reducing the net revenue to AMHA. Further reducing the net revenue would be the fact that we would have to provide the same opportunities to AMHS as we do to AMHA. Therefore, they would have to have the same educational, promotional, and showing opportunities. Since the AMHS would be a separate registry from AMHA, with its own needs and different marketing strategies, etc., it means we would double the educational, promotional, and show budgets since they would be their ‘own’ registry, and not truly a ‘part’ of AMHA.
With the currently proposed AMHS registry, a problematic area will be whether people will expect to incorporate AMHS horses into the same shows where AMHA horses are being exhibited. I do NOT think this is a good idea. AMHA shows are ‘full’ enough with the class lists that are offered. To incorporate AMHS horses would mean that AMHA classes would need to be cut. That is taking away from AMHA and AMHA members.
I do, however, support a ‘B’ division for AMHA, with the ‘B’ denoting a new 'breeding stock' division in the AMHA stud book for those horses that had AMHA papers at one time in their lives, are parent qualified, but have grown over the 34" mark. These would be horses who are offspring of fully registered AMHA horses and who can prove their parentage. If AMHA is a 'breed' association, that prides themselves in the purity of it pedigrees and insists on DNA testing and parental verification, then it does not seem right that a horse who can prove to be the offspring of two registered parents is denied acceptance into AMHA, at least in some manner. As an Association, we should not be turning our backs on these horses we have produced.
However, I do not see these 'breeding stock' horses as being treated completely the same as 'regularly' registered horses. Allowing a ‘breeding stock’ division should not change the AMHA standard of perfection, therefore AMHA should not recognize them as true ‘miniature’ horses, and therefore would not allow horses over the height of 34" to participate in AMHA sanctioned shows. To do so would defeat the years of work that breeders have put into trying to breed the smallest, perfect horse.
This concept of allowing all sizes to be registered, but not allowing all sizes to show, is not new. It is my understanding that this is the way that registered dogs are shown. Each breed of dog has a ‘standard’ height range for showing. Only those dogs that meet the height requirements are exhibited. Horses in a ‘breeding stock’ division would be treated the same. They would be treated essentially the same as horses with ‘regular’ AMHA papers, the primary difference is that since they don’t meet the ‘standard’ they are ineligible to be shown at AMHA shows.
There is an economic benefit to AMHA in a ‘breeding stock’ division. These horses who exceeded 34†are currently ‘lost’ to AMHA, losing their genetic potential and revenue. With the breeding stock option, AMHA could earn additional income from registrations when these horses are taken permanent. Additional earnings would come from registering the foals of these animals. Right now, by turning our backs on the ‘used-to-be’ AMHA horses we are also turning our backs on income they could be generating for the Association.
A ‘breeding stock’ division registration would give the AMHA more net revenue than an AMHS registration would. Along with the fact that the ‘breeding stock’ division doesn’t have to be supported with education, promotion, and show opportunities, a breeding stock registration won’t increase the AMHA office workload as much. It is simpler and quicker to take a ‘temporary’ registration to ‘breeding-stock’ than it is to create a brand new registration for an over-sized non-AMHA affiliated horse into AMHS. AMHS would require a new, full registration packet being created. To move a horse from temporary to breeding-stock within AMHA is just a change in status, so it is not as time and labor intensive because the horse’s information if already on record.
I have heard people say that having a breeding stock division would be a step backwards, and that is would promote people breeding larger horses. However, I do not believe this to be true. Offering a non-showing, breeding stock division does not promote the production of taller horses, as it would not 'reward' (by offering them a venue for exhibition) breeders who are producing taller and taller horses. There will be no incentive to breed for the taller horses if they can not be shown. The economic incentive will still be to breed the 34" and under horse.
I would however, allow them to produce AMHA registerable foals, IF they are bred to a mate who carries 'regular' (34" or under) papers. I would allow the foals produced from such matings to have the normal 'temporary' papers that are currently given to all AMHA foals. If they stay under the 34" mark at maturity, they are automatically given 'regular' papers. If they go over 34", then they would be given 'breeding stock' papers.
I do not think there should be any limit to the height of horses in the 'breeding stock' division. If they are parent qualified from registered AMHA horses, then they should be allowed in the breeding stock division. (Again, there is no monetary incentive for breeders to be producing over-size horses, so allowing the taller horses in this division does not create an incentive to breed for taller horses.)
Just another thought that came to mind when I was thinking about over-sized horses and a breeding stock division. It has to do with hardshipping and the fact that some people don’t want to allow breeding stock horse to produce foals with ‘normal’ temporary papers. Genetically, the foals from breeding stock horses (especially if they are mated to horses with ‘regular AMHA’ papers) are more likely to stay under 34†than the foals from hardshipped horses who come from parents who are known to be over 34â€. Often, the horses that are hardshipped are not true examples of the genetic heights for their bloodlines. The fact that they matured at under 34†is sometimes just happenstance. Genetically, these hardshipped horses are more likely to produce taller offspring that the ‘breeding-stock’ horses. (On a different note, maybe with this in mind, hardshipped horses should have some special designation on their papers and be required to only be bred to horses with ‘regular’ AMHA papers, just as I have proposed for ‘breeding stock’ horses. Maybe, a hardshipped horse could have the letter H after its registration number so that it is easily denoted that the horse did not come from AMHA stock.) Hardshipped horses have a greater chance of producing oversize offspring than AMHA horses that go ‘over’, but no one seems concerned about putting any restrictions on the registration of foals from hard-shipped horses to be registered. Therefore, I don’t see where allowing ‘breeding stock’ horses the same privileges is any cause for alarm for the registry either.
Another benefit of a ‘breeding stock’ division, is that is would help people to be honest about the true heights of their horses. Currently, if an AMHA registered horse exceeds 34â€, and an owner is honest about it, their horse suddenly becomes a ‘grade’ animal of minimal worth. The fact that it can be hardshipped into a different registry has nothing to do with the fact that the registry of its birth, AMHA, has declared the horse ‘worthless’ by refusing to recognize it anymore. With a breeding stock division, the horse does not lose its AMHA identity. It might be less valuable, as it can no longer be shown in AMHA shows, but it is still a viable breeding animal, able to produce AMHA registered foals, so retains much more value than being a ‘grade’ animal.
Along the same line, by being able to acknowledge that ones horse has exceeded 34â€, without the fear of the animal being rejected by AMHA, an owner of an oversized horse is free to register it with other registries and show it in shows that have classes for taller horses. Owners would no longer have to ‘hide’ these horses in the back pasture, but could proudly continue to exhibit the animals, without fear of the horse totally losing its AMHA status.
I really don’t see any substantial negatives to a ‘breeding stock’ division in the AMHA stud books for horse who had temporary AMHA papers, are parent qualified, and have grown over 34†tall. I would be strongly in favor of AMHA initiating this kind of a proposal, but I am not in favor of the AMHS proposal.
Hand-in-hand with starting a ‘breeding stock’ division, should be changing the way we measure our miniatures horses. It should be changed from the last hair of the main to the TOP of the withers. I have some very specific ideas on how to implement the change, but that will the topic of another letter. Thank you for your time.
Julie Miller
R3 Minis
Fletcher, OK
www.R3minis.net
I am opposed the AMHS as it is proposed, and I don't feel that the Appendix idea is the right answer either. I do not think that the AMHA needs to start a 'new' registry for 34-38" horses. Recognizing horses over 34" as 'miniature' horses goes against the stated charter of the AMHA.
I seen no compelling reason why AMHA should start a registry by going outside of its own gene-pool to allow horses from other registries and those that are unregistered with totally unknown pedigrees into our registry that has so long been associated with only 34†and under equines? Doing so would mean a major change in the focus of the Association, and I think it would do more to promote other Registries that it would help our own. Yes, it would be a new source of income, but I don't think it is the best way that could be available.
I believe that if AMHA has to support an entirely new and separate registry, such as AMHS, it might end up increasing our expenses, eating into whatever revenue the new registry would generate. Yes, the gross revenues would increase with the addition of AMHS registrations, but more registrations increase the workload for the office staff, so it would be necessary to increase office staff to handle the tasks, reducing the net revenue to AMHA. Further reducing the net revenue would be the fact that we would have to provide the same opportunities to AMHS as we do to AMHA. Therefore, they would have to have the same educational, promotional, and showing opportunities. Since the AMHS would be a separate registry from AMHA, with its own needs and different marketing strategies, etc., it means we would double the educational, promotional, and show budgets since they would be their ‘own’ registry, and not truly a ‘part’ of AMHA.
With the currently proposed AMHS registry, a problematic area will be whether people will expect to incorporate AMHS horses into the same shows where AMHA horses are being exhibited. I do NOT think this is a good idea. AMHA shows are ‘full’ enough with the class lists that are offered. To incorporate AMHS horses would mean that AMHA classes would need to be cut. That is taking away from AMHA and AMHA members.
I do, however, support a ‘B’ division for AMHA, with the ‘B’ denoting a new 'breeding stock' division in the AMHA stud book for those horses that had AMHA papers at one time in their lives, are parent qualified, but have grown over the 34" mark. These would be horses who are offspring of fully registered AMHA horses and who can prove their parentage. If AMHA is a 'breed' association, that prides themselves in the purity of it pedigrees and insists on DNA testing and parental verification, then it does not seem right that a horse who can prove to be the offspring of two registered parents is denied acceptance into AMHA, at least in some manner. As an Association, we should not be turning our backs on these horses we have produced.
However, I do not see these 'breeding stock' horses as being treated completely the same as 'regularly' registered horses. Allowing a ‘breeding stock’ division should not change the AMHA standard of perfection, therefore AMHA should not recognize them as true ‘miniature’ horses, and therefore would not allow horses over the height of 34" to participate in AMHA sanctioned shows. To do so would defeat the years of work that breeders have put into trying to breed the smallest, perfect horse.
This concept of allowing all sizes to be registered, but not allowing all sizes to show, is not new. It is my understanding that this is the way that registered dogs are shown. Each breed of dog has a ‘standard’ height range for showing. Only those dogs that meet the height requirements are exhibited. Horses in a ‘breeding stock’ division would be treated the same. They would be treated essentially the same as horses with ‘regular’ AMHA papers, the primary difference is that since they don’t meet the ‘standard’ they are ineligible to be shown at AMHA shows.
There is an economic benefit to AMHA in a ‘breeding stock’ division. These horses who exceeded 34†are currently ‘lost’ to AMHA, losing their genetic potential and revenue. With the breeding stock option, AMHA could earn additional income from registrations when these horses are taken permanent. Additional earnings would come from registering the foals of these animals. Right now, by turning our backs on the ‘used-to-be’ AMHA horses we are also turning our backs on income they could be generating for the Association.
A ‘breeding stock’ division registration would give the AMHA more net revenue than an AMHS registration would. Along with the fact that the ‘breeding stock’ division doesn’t have to be supported with education, promotion, and show opportunities, a breeding stock registration won’t increase the AMHA office workload as much. It is simpler and quicker to take a ‘temporary’ registration to ‘breeding-stock’ than it is to create a brand new registration for an over-sized non-AMHA affiliated horse into AMHS. AMHS would require a new, full registration packet being created. To move a horse from temporary to breeding-stock within AMHA is just a change in status, so it is not as time and labor intensive because the horse’s information if already on record.
I have heard people say that having a breeding stock division would be a step backwards, and that is would promote people breeding larger horses. However, I do not believe this to be true. Offering a non-showing, breeding stock division does not promote the production of taller horses, as it would not 'reward' (by offering them a venue for exhibition) breeders who are producing taller and taller horses. There will be no incentive to breed for the taller horses if they can not be shown. The economic incentive will still be to breed the 34" and under horse.
I would however, allow them to produce AMHA registerable foals, IF they are bred to a mate who carries 'regular' (34" or under) papers. I would allow the foals produced from such matings to have the normal 'temporary' papers that are currently given to all AMHA foals. If they stay under the 34" mark at maturity, they are automatically given 'regular' papers. If they go over 34", then they would be given 'breeding stock' papers.
I do not think there should be any limit to the height of horses in the 'breeding stock' division. If they are parent qualified from registered AMHA horses, then they should be allowed in the breeding stock division. (Again, there is no monetary incentive for breeders to be producing over-size horses, so allowing the taller horses in this division does not create an incentive to breed for taller horses.)
Just another thought that came to mind when I was thinking about over-sized horses and a breeding stock division. It has to do with hardshipping and the fact that some people don’t want to allow breeding stock horse to produce foals with ‘normal’ temporary papers. Genetically, the foals from breeding stock horses (especially if they are mated to horses with ‘regular AMHA’ papers) are more likely to stay under 34†than the foals from hardshipped horses who come from parents who are known to be over 34â€. Often, the horses that are hardshipped are not true examples of the genetic heights for their bloodlines. The fact that they matured at under 34†is sometimes just happenstance. Genetically, these hardshipped horses are more likely to produce taller offspring that the ‘breeding-stock’ horses. (On a different note, maybe with this in mind, hardshipped horses should have some special designation on their papers and be required to only be bred to horses with ‘regular’ AMHA papers, just as I have proposed for ‘breeding stock’ horses. Maybe, a hardshipped horse could have the letter H after its registration number so that it is easily denoted that the horse did not come from AMHA stock.) Hardshipped horses have a greater chance of producing oversize offspring than AMHA horses that go ‘over’, but no one seems concerned about putting any restrictions on the registration of foals from hard-shipped horses to be registered. Therefore, I don’t see where allowing ‘breeding stock’ horses the same privileges is any cause for alarm for the registry either.
Another benefit of a ‘breeding stock’ division, is that is would help people to be honest about the true heights of their horses. Currently, if an AMHA registered horse exceeds 34â€, and an owner is honest about it, their horse suddenly becomes a ‘grade’ animal of minimal worth. The fact that it can be hardshipped into a different registry has nothing to do with the fact that the registry of its birth, AMHA, has declared the horse ‘worthless’ by refusing to recognize it anymore. With a breeding stock division, the horse does not lose its AMHA identity. It might be less valuable, as it can no longer be shown in AMHA shows, but it is still a viable breeding animal, able to produce AMHA registered foals, so retains much more value than being a ‘grade’ animal.
Along the same line, by being able to acknowledge that ones horse has exceeded 34â€, without the fear of the animal being rejected by AMHA, an owner of an oversized horse is free to register it with other registries and show it in shows that have classes for taller horses. Owners would no longer have to ‘hide’ these horses in the back pasture, but could proudly continue to exhibit the animals, without fear of the horse totally losing its AMHA status.
I really don’t see any substantial negatives to a ‘breeding stock’ division in the AMHA stud books for horse who had temporary AMHA papers, are parent qualified, and have grown over 34†tall. I would be strongly in favor of AMHA initiating this kind of a proposal, but I am not in favor of the AMHS proposal.
Hand-in-hand with starting a ‘breeding stock’ division, should be changing the way we measure our miniatures horses. It should be changed from the last hair of the main to the TOP of the withers. I have some very specific ideas on how to implement the change, but that will the topic of another letter. Thank you for your time.
Julie Miller
R3 Minis
Fletcher, OK
www.R3minis.net
