Appendix Registry proposal heading to Vegas

[midnight star stables]

:aktion033: I like the idea personaly

:

 

[Buckskin gal]

Is it really the "dreaded unknown blood of AMHR horses" that AMHA people have a problem with or is it the heigth? I am both an AMHR and AMHA person and I don't have anything against AMHR horses coming into AMHA. I f they meet the requirments of the Standard, why should there be a problem? I just don't believe it is about the blood but about the size. I would like to know why someone would think it is about the "dreaded blood". As for the oversize, of either registry, being used in a lot of pastures...I think there may be cheating going on but if AMHA people want to have the appendix for breeding horses, I only hope it works well for them. As for AMHR people using over 38" for breeding, I can only wonder what in the world they are thinking. If AMHA wants to make some money by adding the appendix, I say go for it. This will not stop those serious about breeding 34" and under minis because they are serious about the size. After all AMHR did add extra registries to bring in more money so why not AMHA doing something similar? Hope everyone keeps happy and goes on breeding the very best miniature horses they possibly can because they are wonderful little horses. Mary

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?

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

I would like to know why someone would think it is about the "dreaded blood". As for the oversize, of either registry, being used in a lot of pastures...I think there may be cheating going on but if AMHA people want to have the appendix for breeding horses, I only hope it works well for them. As for AMHR people using over 38" for breeding, I can only wonder what in the world they are thinking.

It has been said on this thread and others discussing this issue in past threads- in more then one way that the "unknown" parentage of the fact that some now AMHR horses are not DNA'd and PQ'd would be an issue for them and one reason they are opposed to this propsal. That is where that is coming from.Although like I said I dont get that reasoning for only one reason--- I can take a 33.50 in mare who was sired by and out of 37 in stock or heck bigger for that matter and register her and breed her.. thus still bringing in big size bloodlines or as some have said watering down the stock in AMHA- this is where the whole issue lies is it a breed? If so then how does letting any horse who measures in keeping the bloodlines pure or not watered down to use someone elses expression(cause I cant think of my own right now)

Is it strictly a height registry where bloodlines are not of issue but size is the issue? I think it is hard to call yourself a breed (and no not only AMHA I am discussing) when you have pure bred animals with verified pedigrees going back generations then you have to do something other then revoke there paperwork IMO if and that is a big IF you choose to think of yourself as a "blood" breed.

Guess herin lies the big question but.. one way or another the membership will speak when they vote and the proposal will either pass or be rewritten to fill the needs of more members.

I will be interested to see what happens

but that said I also dont know the answer other then my own experience of full siblings coming out different sizes but I am not sure what the difference is in percentage of her offspring remaining 34 or under compared to say a 35 in full sister of hers? I would guess there are many long time breeders who have done enough research to know the answer to that and just havent posted the thoughts on that particular subject here in these discussions. In fact I would love to hear that information. I know in my own experience I have breed two under 34 horses and one year ended up with a foal that at maturity remained under 33 in and the other at a year was already over 34 in.

As far as what are AMHR people breeding oversize horses thinking? I would guess it is the same as those breeding oversize AMHA horses (and we all know they exist and are not rare on both sides).. That this horse produces stock that remains in size a majority of the time so why not? At least that is what I have heard from those that choose to do so and I would guess in many cases they are correct(or it wouldnt be worth the time and effort for them) the resulting offspring does stay in size which is why I am guessing this whole proposal came about and why there are many who are saying.. make a choice a breed or a height registry

 

[horsedude]

It is high time that All AMHA BREEDERS take responsibility for the AMHA offspring they produce that go over 34 inches tall...............EVERYONE produces them at one point or another........EVERYONE. And AMHR should not be the "dumping ground" as some refer to it for these "oversize horses". People have them, People hide them, people lie about having them. It's just time we stop this nonsense and have an over division for AMHA.

When the decision was made years ago that 34" was the "Max Height", it was the opinion of a bunch of people who started AMHA......what was the size of the breeding stock in those days......26, 27 inch stallions......the smaller the better.....in those days, 34 inches was HUGE..........well, it's not anymore. Our horses have come a LONG WAYS since then. And when they decided what the "Max height" should be....they could have said 30 inches....31 inches.....35 inches......it's just the opinion of some of the good ole boys that 34 inches was the mark.........so anything else is inferior???? Nonsense.

My AMHA horses that grew to 35, 37, 38 inches tall, deserve the same respect and recognition as those that are 28, 30, 33, 34 inches tall. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY.......OUR HORSES DESERVE TO RETAIN THEIR HERRITAGE, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SIZE!!!

HOW CAN YOU BREED A MINIATURE HORSE TO A MINIATURE HORSE, AND NOT HAVE THE RESULTING FOAL BE A REGISTERED MINIATURE HORSE??? THAT IS WHAT AMHA HAS DONE FOR YEARS, WHEN TWO AMHA HORSES PRODUCE A 34 PLUS INCH HORSE, AMHA SAYS, IT IS NOT A REGISTERABLE HORSE.....NONSENSE!!!!

IT'S A NEW CENTURY.....TIME TO BE OUT WITH THE OLD AND IN WITH THE NEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FLAME AWAY......................I DON'T CARE.............AN AMHA OVER DIVISION WILL EXIST IN MY LIFETIME!!

 

[Humhill]

Are there any other breeds that have height regulations and withdraw papers on stock that do not meet those height requirements?

The big decision is do the want this to be a breed based on blood or height?

I agree with whoever said if we're basing everything on height, then it should be open to horses that meet that height.

 

[hhpminis]

There have been some very good points made here and I enjoy hearing both sides. However, like it or not, this proposal is, as we speak, in Vegas.

My feelings on this in a nutshell is that it has always griped me that when a horse goes over 34, you pull their papers, and from that point on they become "unknown". If they have offspring that we feel are worth the hardship fee, their heritage is lost, they have "unregistered" parents.

I think that most breeders are in agreement that someday we want to be a blood breed, one that is taken seriously, and with a studbook to back it. Each and everytime we pull papers on a horse we take a step back away from that.

I would love to see this appendix registry fly and I would put my horses in it for the mere sake that if my taller horses do produce an under 34 horse that that beautifully perfect in every other way foal can be more than a brat stepchild.

Whether we breed tall or small, we put a lot of work, effort, emotion, time and money into the result. I for one want it to have a pedigree. Lets face it folks they dont drop from the sky!

 

[R3]

I am opposed to the proposal as presented...BUT, I am not against an Appendix/Breeding Stock division within AMHA. I agree that if a horse was registered with AMHA and is parent qualified, but then grows over 34", that it should not be denied recognition by AMHA and become worthless in their eyes. But, THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED!!!!! What is being proposed is that AMHA should recognize ALL AMHR horses, including the ones that are over 34" as being the same as AMHA horses. Let me quote what Ronnie said when he first unveiled this proposal here on the Forum, "I also believe that an AMHR registered horse is just as much an American Miniature Horse as an AMHA horse is."

This is why I oppose this proposal... I do not think that AMHA needs to become the 'same' as AMHR.

AMHR has a height limit, 38 inches. Why is it 'wrong' or 'elitist' for AMHA to have a height limit for their organization? They are NOT the same organization as AMHR, so why should they have to agree with AMHR on what size they want their horses to be?

AMHA is about breeding for SMALLER correct horses, not about breeding for better driving horses. The 'goal' of AMHA breeders is supposed to be to strive to make the horses SMALLER and BETTER, not bigger and better. Surely, in the years that have passed since AMHA was formed, the breeeders should have made progress toward that goal...and I believe they have! The quality of the 'tiny' horses has indeed improved greatly. So, why would AMHA want to now RAISE the height limits?

YES, I believe we need to recognize the AMHA horse that grows taller than 34", but I do not think that this proposal is the best way to do it, and therefore should not be supported at the Annual Meeting.

 

[ThreeCFarm]

My AMHA horses that grew to 35, 37, 38 inches tall, deserve the same respect and recognition as those that are 28, 30, 33, 34 inches tall. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY.......OUR HORSES DESERVE TO RETAIN THEIR HERRITAGE, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SIZE!!!

HOW CAN YOU BREED A MINIATURE HORSE TO A MINIATURE HORSE, AND NOT HAVE THE RESULTING FOAL BE A REGISTERED MINIATURE HORSE??? THAT IS WHAT AMHA HAS DONE FOR YEARS, WHEN TWO AMHA HORSES PRODUCE A 34 PLUS INCH HORSE, AMHA SAYS, IT IS NOT A REGISTERABLE HORSE.....NONSENSE!!!!

IT'S A NEW CENTURY.....TIME TO BE OUT WITH THE OLD AND IN WITH THE NEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FLAME AWAY......................I DON'T CARE.............AN AMHA OVER DIVISION WILL EXIST IN MY LIFETIME!!

AMHR DOES THIS SAME EXACT THING!!! Why are so many people bashing AMHA for pulling papers on oversized horses, but no one complains about AMHR for doing it? I have NEVER seen one complaint on here about R pulling papers.

As to some "good ole boys" deciding to make the max height 34" and "anything else is inferior," why is it okay for R to have a cut off at 38" but it isn't okay for A to have a 34" cut off? You have to draw the line somewhere, and R has drawn that line at 38", and A has drawn the line at 34".

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BUT HEIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BOTH REGISTRIES DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

My apologies for "yelling," but I'm so tired of seeing A bashed for the same things that go on in other registries.

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

Three C I do agree with you in alot of ways and again I dont really care other then interesting to watch what happens to this proposal however I can tell you this from MY OWN POINT OF VIEW

the reason it is more aggravating to me to hear AMHA talk about over size horses is the somehow belief that it is the only registry for true minis as if mine are less then- there are differences and simularities in both registries in good and bad but I have yet to hear someone with a very nice B horse say oh those AMHA horses those are not REAL MINIS but again that is just my opinion. I think that back in the day it was a cause of huge conflict even though I do realize it was bottom line a marketing decision with those that chose to break off of AMHR and start there own registry. I mean then the stories came about that somehow these same horses that they had when they were all AMHR became a whole different breed when they branched off to become AMHA- again I realize the marketing part of it and it worked and worked well heck many made HUGE bucks and there is nothing wrong with that So I see the logic behind it just dont agree with it but then again life doesnt go according to me

:

I do think it will be very interesting to see what happens over the next few years in the industry as a whole. Not to long ago there was a price difference and a widespread belief difference in the value of AMHA minis over AMHR minis however now that the prices are much more competitive with AMHR horses bringing in some of the same big bucks that the bigger AMHA horses (meaning in name not size) are.. and the R market is more of something to for lack of a better term be reckoned with compared to where it was even say 3-4 years ago heck even 2 years ago.

Either way the reality for all of us AMHA or AMHR or both or AMHR/ASPC whatever... the industry is changing in leaps and bounds and in so many ways for the better and while most of us don't like and are not comfortable with change... change is bound to happen if we want our registries to keep up with the growth

Edited to change the term to less then so that one word does not need to be cause of conflict anymore for some (well one)

 

[Mona]

AMHR DOES THIS SAME EXACT THING!!! Why are so many people bashing AMHA for pulling papers on oversized horses, but no one complains about AMHR for doing it? I have NEVER seen one complaint on here about R pulling papers.

As to some "good ole boys" deciding to make the max height 34" and "anything else is inferior," why is it okay for R to have a cut off at 38" but it isn't okay for A to have a 34" cut off? You have to draw the line somewhere, and R has drawn that line at 38", and A has drawn the line at 34".

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BUT HEIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BOTH REGISTRIES DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

My apologies for "yelling," but I'm so tired of seeing A bashed for the same things that go on in other registries.

A little fftopic: but...Just because people state that they dislike what AMHA is doing, does not mean it is BASHING!!! That term is just too easily thrown around on these Forums! Just because people disagree with something, or are against something, it doesn't = BASHING!

 

[ThreeCFarm]

Sorry for chosing a word that you disagree with. However, that is the way I see it when it happens over and over and over and people act like A is the only registry doing these things. And I didn't form this opinion from this thread, it has been going on for a long time now, and not just on this subject. People can complain that they are tired of people picking on R, but it isn't "allowed" the other way apparently.

My point is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

I'm not totally against letting in over 34" horses, so please don't take this that way. I just don't like the current proposal and wish it would have had more exposure to the members before taking it to the convention.

I'm tired and not in the mood to be on here (as you can tell, LOL), so I'm signing off.

 

[woodnldy]

This is from one of Lisa's "but that said I also dont know the answer other then my own experience of full siblings coming out different sizes but I am not sure what the difference is in percentage of her offspring remaining 34 or under compared to say a 35 in full sister of hers? I would guess there are many long time breeders who have done enough research to know the answer to that and just havent posted the thoughts on that particular subject here in these discussions. In fact I would love to hear that information. I know in my own experience I have breed two under 34 horses and one year ended up with a foal that at maturity remained under 33 in and the other at a year was already over 34 in." It does happen . I too have seen it. When bloodlines were checked you had to go 6 generations back to find anything that was registered as 34". At least if this proposal goes thru then people can be honest about their stock. Then when we look at pedigree's we get an accurate picture of possible genetics.

 

[R3]

I'm going to say this again! I think some people are missing the point... The proposal that Ronnie is suggesting is NOT just about retaining AMHA horses that go oversize. His proposal goes WAY further than that!!!! It is changing much, much more than having a place within AMHA for AMHA oversize horses.

This Appendix proposal is about letting horses into AMHA that may not have ANY under 34" horses in their pedigrees, at all, including themselves, into the AMHA as breeding animals. These horse may themselves be 38" inches tall and come from parents that are 'pony' sized (over 38"), not miniatures. It would allow two 38†Appendix horses to be bred and the resulting foal be given ‘regular’ AMHA temporary papers until it grows over 34â€. This proposal is NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT AMHA HORSES THAT GO OVERSIZE!!!! This is the reason this proposal should be voted down at the Annual Meeting.

If the real issue is AMHA horses that go oversize, then we need a different proposal than the one offered. We need a proposal that addresses only AMHA oversize horses, not suddenly allowing every AMHR horse from 34-38" with any size parentage access into the registry.

I understand the desire to have a form of Appendix/Breeding Stock registry to address the oversize issue and move AMHA further along toward becoming a 'breed'. I truly think we need one, but THIS proposal, the one that Ronnie has suggested, is NOT the one we need.

In a reverse sense, if this proposal is adopted, we would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Yes, we would address the oversize issue (throw out the dirty bath water as we need to), but in the process, we add horses into the registry that do not meet the standard of the AMHA, have never been registered with AMHA, and are by/out of parents who have never been registered with AMHA and do not meet the AMHA standards (thereby throwing the baby out with the water. which we don't want to do).

I truly believe that there is a better way to address the issue than the proposal submitted. I think it would be better for AMHA to take its time to look at other options before rushing into this proposal. It is very difficult to change something once it is in place, so we need to thoroughly investigate ALL methods of ‘fixing’ the problem before rushing into something. This is not a case where ‘something is better than nothing’. This ‘something’ could cause major repercussions that have not been fully addressed. We need to consider the long-term implications of this proposal before we hastily make a decision of this importance to the Association.

I really do appreciate the work that Ronnie has done, so this is nothing personal. I just think it is the wrong answer, if the question is, ‘What to do with oversize AMHA horses?’ But, if the question is actually, ‘Do we want AMHA to accept 34-38†horses, of any ancestry, into the Association?’ then we need to be sure that the Membership realizes that that is the REAL purpose of the proposal and realizes that is what they are voting on.

 

[Buckskin gal]

But there really isn't any reason to be upset if someone has given an opinion that the AMHA horses are the true Miniatures because if a person likes the taller miniatures and they doing great with them then what the heck is so bad? Not everyone agrees and to be aggravated about an opinion of someone else is a waste of energy. If you think your horses are true Miniatures isn't that what really matters? Personally I think words have gotten twisted and it isn't at all about which registry has "true" or "fake" minis. In fact the only time I have heard or read of "true" or "fake" minis is from one person.

: No use getting your panties in a wad over others opinions because if you think you have "true" minis isn't that what really matters? There are wonderful minis in both registrys and something for any person who really loves Miniature horses. I know I sure wouldn't let it bother me if someone told me my B minis aren't true miniatures because it is what I know that matters. Both registrys have a lot to offer people who have the interest in Miniature horses so lets appreciate that and not worry about what someone may or may not be saying about who has the "fakes" or who has the "true" Miniatures....it is really irrevelant and nonesense to even consider it. JMO Mary

Three C I do agree with you in alot of ways and again I dont really care other then interesting to watch what happens to this proposal however I can tell you this from MY OWN POINT OF VIEW

the reason it is more aggravating to me to hear AMHA talk about over size horses is the somehow belief that it is the only registry for true minis as if mine are fake- there are differences and simularities in both registries in good and bad but I have yet to hear someone with a very nice B horse say oh those AMHA horses those are not REAL MINIS but again that is just my opinion. I think that back in the day it was a cause of huge conflict even though I do realize it was bottom line a marketing decision with those that chose to break off of AMHR and start there own registry. I mean then the stories came about that somehow these same horses that they had when they were all AMHR became a whole different breed when they branched off to become AMHA- again I realize the marketing part of it and it worked and worked well heck many made HUGE bucks and there is nothing wrong with that So I see the logic behind it just dont agree with it but then again life doesnt go according to me

:

I do think it will be very interesting to see what happens over the next few years in the industry as a whole. Not to long ago there was a price difference and a widespread belief difference in the value of AMHA minis over AMHR minis however now that the prices are much more competitive with AMHR horses bringing in some of the same big bucks that the bigger AMHA horses (meaning in name not size) are.. and the R market is more of something to for lack of a better term be reckoned with compared to where it was even say 3-4 years ago heck even 2 years ago.

Either way the reality for all of us AMHA or AMHR or both or AMHR/ASPC whatever... the industry is changing in leaps and bounds and in so many ways for the better and while most of us don't like and are not comfortable with change... change is bound to happen if we want our registries to keep up with the growth

 

[hhpminis]

R3

I appreciate your view and I also believe we need to start somewhere and I think this is a great start. Remember this is a proposal. This is not a immediate rule or by law change. This will open up a discussion at the annual meeting and get the gears turning. I actually will be shocked if it passes the way it is written, but it will start peoples minds going.

Just a comment though on some things you brought up. Now I can only speak for myself and my own close circle of friends that have discussed this.

I dont know anyone, not saying they aren't out there, that would spend the money to get their obviously over, never going to be under or produce under horses into this registry. This would be silly and a waste of money. If people want to do this than I guess they have more money and less sense than I do.

However, I have several horses that I am waiting to turn 5 as I feel they will measure in to be hardshipped. They are just right there in the height. Will they produce smaller, I dont know, but if they do, I want a pedigree on that foals papers. I am willing to spend the money to get them and their pedigree on record just in case.

This next part is not directed at you R3 or anyone else just my view...

Ronnie put a lot of time, research and placed several questionaires out there to get opinions, He wrote and rewrote this several times. Those that are upset that he didn't contact everyone, just how was he supposed to do that? He used the avenues that were readily available to him and believe me, this was buzzing around cyberspace to the extent that I got info from everywhere in my inbox.

I am in no way a basher of either registry. I am just a small breeder that is trying to create a better horse each year, wherever that stick may land.

Lets see what happens in the next couple days and then go from there.

 

[R3]

hhpminis, thanks for you input.

This will be my first National Meeting, and I will readily admit that I know nothing of how the Annual meeting is conducted and what processes are involved in Ronnie's idea moving from a 'proposal' into some kind of an actual rule/by-law change. Since I am unfamiliar with the process, I would be interested to know exactly how a proposal such as he is suggesting is handled at the meeting. Which committee would hear it, what happens to it in the committee, and what happens after that?

I was under the impression that on some rule changes, that they had to voted on as submitted, and that once they passed on a vote at the National Meeting, that they would 'happen'. But, from what you are saying, the is much more to the process.

I would definitely like to have more discussion on the subject. I really am trying to understand the 'why' of making this kind of a proposal. Is it about what to do with 'oversize' AMHA horses, is it about adding more horses into the gene pool, is it about a way for AMHA to bring in additional revenue? I really feel that the issue we are trying to 'solve' needs to be defined if we are to find the right answer to the 'problem'.

 

[hhpminis]

It will be presented to a committee which you can sit in on but it will also be discussed in the general meeting. Like I said, this is a start, I do not see it being passed as written, if it does I think I will drop my jaw. I am not going to be there but would love to hear the discussion. Could you keep all of us that are at home posted as to how this is panning out?

I personally am for it and want to see it happen. I think the answer to your question as to why is yes,yes,yes. Place for over A horses, way to generate more income and probably least is to add to the gene pool, however, that is my top reason of the 3 you mentioned for wanting it.

You will have a good time and be happy I think with how the meetings are conducted. You may not get your way but it is brought up, discussed fairly, and voted on. Simple, majority wins.

 

[Humhill]

but in the process, we add horses into the registry that do not meet the standard of the AMHA, have never been registered with AMHA, and are by/out of parents who have never been registered with AMHA and do not meet the AMHA standards (thereby throwing the baby out with the water. which we don't want to do).

I have to say, I've seen a lot of horses registered with AMHA that do not meet the breed standards, other than height. At the same time, I've seen AMHR horses that meet or exceed the AMHA standards, are under 34" (mature), and have no AMHA parentage. What's wrong with adding this "good blood" to the AMHA? So many breeds have improved their stock by adding blood from other breeds.

Don't forget, "The Immortal Rowdy" ... His dam is of unknown origin, and his sire was a Shetland.

And on another note, remember everyone, this is all just opnion!!

 

[Becky]

I've seen AMHR horses that meet or exceed the AMHA standards, are under 34" (mature), and have no AMHA parentage. What's wrong with adding this "good blood" to the AMHA?

Exactly!!!! I am all for allowing AMHR 34" and under horses into AMHA at a reduced fee! That would be good for AMHA and good for the industry!

 

[rabbitsfizz]

Rowdy was a Shetland- sire and Dam both.

The dams name just wasn't recorded.