Appendix Registry proposal heading to Vegas

[chandab]

I am disturbed that this proposal has not been communicated to all AMHA members. A proposal of this magnitude surely needs time for digestion and definitely not something that can be rammed through at a last minutes notice.

My feeling is that this proposal stands to water down that AMHA registry. AMHR has it's own registry and the two should definately stay seperated.

I cannot make the meeting in Vegas, but I beg of those that will be there to question this proposal. The long term concequences of this proposal could mean a muddled and confused AMHA registry. We could one day be saying "my AMHA registered horse is the product of an AMHR and an AMHA Appendix".

Sincerely,

Minidude

Not saying I agree or disagree, but...

All registered miniature horses came from unregistered stock at one time (well I guess some ancestors were registered ponies, but many were unregistered horses under 34"), many AMHR registered horses are AMHA horses that out-grew their papers.

 

[wpsellwood]

No flames here either. When I first read this proposal (like months ago) and I could be wrong but I thought it was meaning for A only horses that went over wouldnt loose their A papers. Such as if they did that in the AMHR, R horses that went over 38 keep their R papers but cant be shown. I think its such a waste for any animal to be thrown out of a registry because of height they should be at least breeding stock.

 

[R3]

I am one person who is STRONGLY OPPOSED to the Appendix proposal as it is presented. I see no value to the AMHA in its pursuit to produce under 34" horses by opening up a new appendix registry to include horses that are not from AMHA registered animals. (Allowing AMHR horses that are over 34", that are not parent qualified as offspring of two AMHA horses.)

I would be in favor of having a Breeding Stock registry. BUT ONLY if it was comprised of horses who are AMHA parent qualified who have grown over 34", and only if it would not change the show standards. (Therefore the oversized horses would not be shown as they do not meet the 'standard of perfection' or the 'definition' of a MINIATURE HORSE, as recognized by AMHA.)

This is one issue I feel very strongly about. Enough so that I am making my first trip the National Meeting in order to vote against the Appendix proposal.

 

[ThreeCFarm]

I am one person who is STRONGLY OPPOSED to the Appendix proposal as it is presented. I see no value to the AMHA in its pursuit to produce under 34" horses by opening up a new appendix registry to include horses that are not from AMHA registered animals. (Allowing AMHR horses that are over 34", that are not parent qualified as offspring of two AMHA horses.)

I would be in favor of having a Breeding Stock registry. BUT ONLY if it was comprised of horses who are AMHA parent qualified who have grown over 34", and only if it would not change the show standards. (Therefore the oversized horses would not be shown as they do not meet the 'standard of perfection' or the 'definition' of a MINIATURE HORSE, as recognized by AMHA.)

My thoughts exactly. :saludando:

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

All of the different opinions are fine. I for one think this would help this registry with some financial issues however that said..

I would not put any more of my R only horses or horses that were A and went over into this appendix registry for the very simple fact that I dont want to spend my hard earned money to put my horses where they are deemed inferior in one way or another .

I am not saying those who oppose this are wrong or there opinions are wrong heck we all have our own ideas and beliefs but I would have to honestly wonder what they huge advantage is to us the ones they want to bring back into the registry with our $$ and horses

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

Ronnie, I LOVE it! Go for it!

I am one person who is STRONGLY OPPOSED to the Appendix proposal as it is presented. I see no value to the AMHA in its pursuit to produce under 34" horses by opening up a new appendix registry to include horses that are not from AMHA registered animals. (Allowing AMHR horses that are over 34", that are not parent qualified as offspring of two AMHA horses.)

This is one reason I really dislike AMHA. Just because my under AMHR horse doesn't have AMHA papers, s/he's worthless? Even though many of his/her ancestors are AMHA? S/he is STILL a Miniature horse!

Talk about elitism at it's finest.....

:

Lucy

 

[Pandora]

Ronnie, I LOVE it! Go for it!

I am one person who is STRONGLY OPPOSED to the Appendix proposal as it is presented. I see no value to the AMHA in its pursuit to produce under 34" horses by opening up a new appendix registry to include horses that are not from AMHA registered animals. (Allowing AMHR horses that are over 34", that are not parent qualified as offspring of two AMHA horses.)

This is one reason I really dislike AMHA. Just because my under AMHR horse doesn't have AMHA papers, s/he's worthless? Even though many of his/her ancestors are AMHA? S/he is STILL a Miniature horse!

Talk about elitism at it's finest.....

:

Lucy

I agree! I get tired of my over 34" horses being deemed worthless by AMHA, even if they did start off being registered in AMHA. I don't think it's fair they lose their papers just because they go over! I'm not even joining AMHA for that reason alone. Now if they do have this appendix registry, I may join.

 

[sedeh]

Sounds good to me Ronnie! It will be interesting to see what happens at convention. Even if it doesn't get done till next year because they want to "put it out there" for the rest of the members, it's still a huge step in the right direction.

 

[ClickMini]

Lisa, I can certainly understand your thoughts on that issue. However, I have one mare that went over and lost her A papers because of it, even though she is PQ'ed. Now if I were to breed her to 29-3/4" Alladdin, and they produced an under 34" offspring, I have lost the ability to register the foal in AMHA, even though both parents were at least at one time registered in AMHA, and all of the recorded ancestors were under 33". Ally is clearly a throwback to some distant relative, or maybe she was just fed too well. lol. The impact to me is not that huge with her, I am not a big-time breeder and she is not a stallion. What about someone else who mentioned they have a beautiful 34-1/2" stallion that is in the same dilemma? Now we are talking a bigger impact! They can produce a lot more offspring than a mare. They may be much smaller, genetically speaking, and never produce a foal that is over 34". But now they and their offspring are lost to the registry. A lot of people might have hidden these horses on the back 40 and a lot of others would do as I have and just dropped these horse's A papers. I am proud of my girl no matter what she is registered as.

I feel pretty strongly that Ally's babies would probably mature under 34", based on her close-up ancestry. Alladdin is tiny, under 30", but his parents and most of his ancestors are a lot taller (still under 34"). Stacy always warned me not to breed him to tiny mares because although he is small in stature he is not necessarily small by blood. We will someday see whether he really is genetically small. In the meantime I will not take that kind of chance by breeding him to a tiny mare.

On the issue of whether AMHA is furthering their goal of producing perfect under 34" horses by opening up to AMHR registered horses, I believe that the breed can definitely benefit by bringing in outside blood. You can bet your boots that I'll be breeding my nice filly Gaia to Alladdin at some point. She is dual-registered AMHR and Shetland and is a foundation classic. She is 2 years old this year, and she is at about 33-1/4" or 33-1/2". That is the same size that Flirt was when she was this age. It is very possible that she will mature under 34", and very unlikely that she will mature over 35". She is a knockout by anyone's standards, and I am SO excited to see what she would produce with Alladdin. What would she bring to the AMHA gene pool? Beauty, refinement, UNBELIEVABLE movement. Quite a lot, really. Breeding her to Alladdin would increase my chances of getting an under 34" offspring, not to mention that they have very compatible characteristics. She is the TYPE I am interested in reproducing. If I can get those foals under 34" I will be ecstatic, whether they are registered A, R, or anything else! My absolute favorite size of miniature is 33" to 34" since I am interested in producing driving horses. I want some leg. I also have the other end of the spectrum at under 30", and that is my stallion. I still feel he will help further my breeding goals since Alladdin to me is the whole package. He is beautiful and he can move! He has a very trim barrel and is short-backed and refined, so even though he is small he still has that leggy look.

I am rambling here, but my point really is this. The registry can say: "We are a size registry" and they can register anything that falls into a specific size category for age. If at the age of senior horse the horse is over, the papers go bye bye. Or the registry can say: "We are a blood registry" and horses don't lose their papers even if they go over. It is this mix and match mentality that is causing all of the headaches.

 

[Buckskin gal]

Seems some forget that our registrys are size registerys and think it is instead about quality that their horses don't qualify for the registerys! Minis that don't comply with the size Standard are not deemed inferior and no one needs to feel that way.....they simply don't meet the Standard and has nothing to do with inferiority! Please people a quality horse is a quality horse but with size registrys we have to keep in mind size does matter and has nothing to do with conformation or disposition. They are "Miniature Horses" and the Standards keep them being that. If someone wants something that doesn't meetthe Standard [for size] then they have every right to choose the larger breeds of horses and leave the small size to those who want Miniature horses. Mary

(I am rambling here, but my point really is this. The registry can say: "We are a size registry" and they can register anything that falls into a specific size category for age. If at the age of senior horse the horse is over, the papers go bye bye. Or the registry can say: "We are a blood registry" and horses don't lose their papers even if they go over. It is this mix and match mentality that is causing all of the headaches.)

 

[ClickMini]

You know what Mary, I really got a chance to clarify my own thoughts while going through writing out that post. I myself don't really care which way AMHA goes, I know what I am striving for and that is the perfect well-conformed trotting machine between 33"-34". If it is a size registry though, I would like it to be much easier and MUCH less expensive for those with horses that are in other registries to cross-register IF their horse falls into the size category FOR THEIR AGE. In other words, if my horse clearly falls into the height range for AMHA, I shouldn't have to wait until age 5 and pay an exhorbitant price to register my horse with AMHA. If it is a height registry it is that, pure and simple. And if I have a 31" yearling, no matter which registry they are from, they would clearly fall into that criteria.

 

[Buckskin gal]

Amy, I think you have a wonderful goal!

: I know if I were younger I would try to be doing the same thing as you....I love the size and I love a beautiful moving mini. I sure do understand your desire to breed for that 33" to 34" horse that can move. Good luck in all your endeavors! Mary

You know what Mary, I really got a chance to clarify my own thoughts while going through writing out that post. I myself don't really care which way AMHA goes, I know what I am striving for and that is the perfect well-conformed trotting machine between 33"-34". If it is a size registry though, I would like it to be much easier and MUCH less expensive for those with horses that are in other registries to cross-register IF their horse falls into the size category FOR THEIR AGE. In other words, if my horse clearly falls into the height range for AMHA, I shouldn't have to wait until age 5 and pay an exhorbitant price to register my horse with AMHA. If it is a height registry it is that, pure and simple. And if I have a 31" yearling, no matter which registry they are from, they would clearly fall into that criteria.

 

[sundancer]

Bravo :aktion033: I think this is a wonderful idea. I fully support it.

Thank you for all your hard work - its great to have a director who is willing to listen and work for what the members want- Thank you

:

 

[MountainMeadows]

I think we are sometimes split between a Registry and a Breed -- in my mind they are different and can be handled differently to the benefit of both.

We are striving to become a Miniature Horse BREED -- that is recognized by a miniature horse REGISTRY --- not so very different than many, many dog BREEDS -- that also have height standards.

Those dogs do NOT lose their AKC papers and registration rights just because they go over the show height requirement - they are still considered valuable breeding animals with a lot to offer the breed as a whole -- I personally see very little difference in what we are trying to accomplish. While those dogs cannot compete in the Open AKC show ring, they are often shown in Agility, Obedience, etc - and are still capable of being able to contribute their genetic qualities to the gene pool - again, is this not what we are trying to accomplish in our miniature horses?

There is room for both attitudes, and acceptance by those whom prefer the smaller miniatures to also acknowledge that from time to time even the tiny, under 30" mini may produce an over 34" horse - that is not to say that that horse should be "thrown out" - genetically it has just as many good traits to pass on as those smaller animals. (And I am sorry to point out that it seems that those individuals who are striving to stay true to the 34" & Under mark tend to be less accepting of this concept than vice versa, which I just don't understand - I am sure that I will be flamed for stating this, but it is kind of what I seem to see over and over again --- OK, got the flame suit on - fire away

: !)

From a personal position, I believe that we need to move forward with a goal to become a miniature horse BREED that is recognized as a BREED and given the same respect as the large horse breeds within the equine community - squabbling over 1/2" or so is not endearing us to those who are watching our progress - we need to unite and move forward and fight for what miniature horses have to offer - we have a long way to go, and many other battles to fight, this should not be one of them.

I think that the Appendix is one way of moving past this issue and starting us on a path that is long overdue.

Stacy

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

I think we are sometimes split between a Registry and a Breed -- in my mind they are different and can be handled differently to the benefit of both.

We are striving to become a Miniature Horse BREED -- that is recognized by a miniature horse REGISTRY --- not so very different than many, many dog BREEDS -- that also have height standards.

Those dogs do NOT lose their AKC papers and registration rights just because they go over the show height requirement - they are still considered valuable breeding animals with a lot to offer the breed as a whole -- I personally see very little difference in what we are trying to accomplish. While those dogs cannot compete in the Open AKC show ring, they are often shown in Agility, Obedience, etc - and are still capable of being able to contribute their genetic qualities to the gene pool - again, is this not what we are trying to accomplish in our miniature horses?

There is room for both attitudes, and acceptance by those whom prefer the smaller miniatures to also acknowledge that from time to time even the tiny, under 30" mini may produce an over 34" horse - that is not to say that that horse should be "thrown out" - genetically it has just as many good traits to pass on as those smaller animals. (And I am sorry to point out that it seems that those individuals who are striving to stay true to the 34" & Under mark tend to be less accepting of this concept than vice versa, which I just don't understand - I am sure that I will be flamed for stating this, but it is kind of what I seem to see over and over again --- OK, got the flame suit on - fire away

: !)

From a personal position, I believe that we need to move forward with a goal to become a miniature horse BREED that is recognized as a BREED and given the same respect as the large horse breeds within the equine community - squabbling over 1/2" or so is not endearing us to those who are watching our progress - we need to unite and move forward and fight for what miniature horses have to offer - we have a long way to go, and many other battles to fight, this should not be one of them.

I think that the Appendix is one way of moving past this issue and starting us on a path that is long overdue.

Stacy

EXCELLENT! Super points!! No flames from ME, I agree!!

Lucy

 

[ThreeCFarm]

For those that say it is wrong for an over 34" horse to lose their papers, how come no one complains about the AMHR over 38" horses having nowhere to go? And don't tell me no horses go over 38"!!! If it is elitist that AMHA pulls papers on an over 34" horse, is it not the same when AMHR pulls papers on an over 38" horse????

 

[Relic]

Well now there's food for thought what seems to work for one also seems to work for the other...

 

[Pandora]

For those that say it is wrong for an over 34" horse to lose their papers, how come no one complains about the AMHR over 38" horses having nowhere to go? And don't tell me no horses go over 38"!!! If it is elitist that AMHA pulls papers on an over 34" horse, is it not the same when AMHR pulls papers on an over 38" horse????

I would be for that also :aktion033:

 

[FairytailGlennMinis]

I have three geldings that are all AMHA bred and all went over. My biggest one is 37.5" and was all 33" and under in his pedigree. My youngest is royally bred and gorgeous, but dang if he isn't over. Why should horses like this lose value in AMHA? I am ALL for the proposal!

-Amy

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

For those that say it is wrong for an over 34" horse to lose their papers, how come no one complains about the AMHR over 38" horses having nowhere to go? And don't tell me no horses go over 38"!!! If it is elitist that AMHA pulls papers on an over 34" horse, is it not the same when AMHR pulls papers on an over 38" horse????

I do agree you are either a height registry or a breed.. that goes for both.I see the benifit for AMHA it is $$ pure and simple.

I see that AMHA people fell that it is bad for there height registry to bring in the dreaded unknown blood of AMHR horses (although you can still bring in any unknown blood into AMHA that meets the height so that confuses me)

I see that those who have 35-36 in horses feel they would be worth more if they had this appendix registry paperwork although I am not sure in reality I think that is true

Bottom line is in a height registry there will still be 38 in AMHA papered horses breeding in the pasture and that will continue, there will still be AMHR papered 42 in horses being bred nothing will stop that from happening I guess perhaps the general thought here is that this would legitimize them?