I competed at R Nationals this year for the first time, and I went as a spectator in 2005. I can assure everyone, that the classes for the 34" and under horses were just as full, if not more full, than the over 34". That tells me a lot about the value of having ALL stock under 38" registered in AMHR. The futurity classes, the halter classes, the driving classes, all full. Driving classes needing to be split due to large entries. If AMHR is seen as second class, that doesn't make any sense to me at all. To compete and win in those VERY large classes, requires one heck of a horse!
I believe the reason that this thread has strayed from the primary issue of the original post, is that the original post did include pretty much all of the issues being discussed: measuring in at the shows, alleged corruption of the AMHA leadership, closing the registry.
Three consistent themes seem to emerge as the primary issues that need to be addressed:
1. MEASURING: what is the most effective way to get the job done consistently and fairly. So many people here, in fact most, are in favor of measuring at the withers. I was at the meeting last year and this was voted down. WHY? If we the people are AMHA, and most are in favor, why is that not being voted in?
2. HARDSHIP REGISTRATION: I don't know the numbers on how many horses are hardship registered each year, but I am betting the number is relatively small. The cost for hardship registering a breeding animal is not insignificant ($1200 for a stallion, $600 for a mare, not exactly pocket change!). I am pretty sure that someone who makes this investment believes that the animals they are registering are truly of a top quality, worthy of joining the ranks of AMHA. Why someone would think that the dollar amount isn't a significant enough hurdle to keep out the undesirable, I can't imagine.
My personal opinion on hardship registration in particular is that it should be opened up at any age the owner wants to gamble on. This would allow a person to show their youngsters at the local level, which in turn ensures the health of the local clubs. If the local clubs fail, a region could very quickly lose all of the AMHA shows. No qualifying for worlds. The AMHR shows would quickly take up the slack, I can assure you. No local clubs, no AMHA. It is really that simple. And honestly, how many people would take a $600-1200 gamble on a horse they thought was going over 34"? I am far from being destitute, but I can assure you I would not!
3. OVER 34" HORSES: Do we allow a breeding stock registration for overheight horses? The opinion seems to be very split on this issue. At this time, it seems most resolve the issue by dual registration. That seems an imperfect solution for AMHA, as has been pointed out in this thread. What if AMHR closes hardshipping to AMHA horses? And how much money is AMHA losing (not to mention future registration and showing revenue from the under 34" offspring of these animals, ESPECIALLY if hardship registration is closed).
Would things be different if absentee voting on the issues was allowed? I see this as being one of the primary issues! We, every member of AMHA ARE THE AMHA! So why aren't we able to get things accomplished? Getting results on a proposal requires it being voted on by the membership at the annual meeting. This meeting is held at a time that many breeders cannot get away. Traveling to the meeting can be very cost-prohibitive. There are many reasons why the membership is guided by a select few, and I see this as being THE BIG ONE. The way to really open up the leadership of this registry and have rules be decided on by the collective group is to enable and allow some sort of absentee voting. Perhaps webcasting the meeting where rule changes are presented and discussed, and having a dedicated and moderated discussion forum on the web for proposals. Have mail-in or web voting. This is not an impossible task! For heck sake, we can vote for the president of the United States by mail, why not an AMHA rule change? This might be a way to get rules effected more quickly as well. There was a sub-committee formed at the last annual meeting to investigate web voting. I signed up for it, but have never received a single correspondence on this. A big step forward I think is our ability to view a web cast of the meeting this year. KUDOS to whomever was able to get this one off the ground! But let's take the next step to truly opening up the guidance of the registry to the members, by figuring out how to open up the voting.
OH! Yes this is a simple procedure - even this simple housewife with just an associates degree could do it. Let me
