A little history--AMHR was begun a few years prior to AMHA(1972, 1978); owned, then and now, by the ASPC, the height limit chosen then was 34". There WAS no over 34"-through 38" designation in AMHR until a number of years later. AMHA also chose, and has kept, the single height limit of 34".
I have ALWAYS favored the idea of an 'Appendix' registry in AMHA; I moved a 34 1/2" mare I'd bought, and measured, into the Foundation Oversized division back in the late '80s-and have always felt it was a very short-sighted idea to end that division(it existed for a very limited time...??) I can see pros and cons to both Ronnie's and Julie's(R3's) stated proposals/positions;honestly, am conflicted about which I would fully support: I DO support the basic concept of an Appendix registry.
I don't feel that some should be so 'defensive' about AMHR horses. It is VERY likely that the VAST majority of both AMHA andAMHR registered horses came from (very similar)Shetland backgrounds; however, it is FACT that AMHA moved steadily toward stricter registration requirements(identifying photos, first blood tying, then DNAing), while AMHR, until very recently, was notably more 'casual' in its requirements-many people saw that as reason to gravitate to one registry or the other (those who believed that the strictness would mean, sooner or later, more reliable pedigrees-and/or liked the original height limit, liked A; some who didn't have any use for 'all of those rules', swung entirely to R-sometimes a strong belief in sticking only to BOTH registries' original designation of a 34" maximum height is a factor, sometimes, not....I have spoken to people of both positions.) The so-called 'elitism' comes from believing more in the organization with the stricter requirements--and personally, I have to agree--I have to have more respect for those kind of requirements. There are MANY things I haven't agreed with about the way both AMHA AND AMHR have done business over the 23 years I've had miniatures, but about this, I have no doubt. Now, today, there are many more serious and dedicated breeders/owners who have (even 34" and under)horses registered only AMHR, NOT because the horses weren't of JUST AS HIGH quality as in AMHA, but because some earlier breeder didn't want to be 'bothered' to comply with AMHA's tougher requirements! So, should these horses and their owners be penalized? It is a hard situation in all sorts of ways! I applaud that R is FINALLY toughening up its requirements! I absolutely agree, also, that the hardship fees for geldings in AMHA is unconscienably HIGH, and should be lowered.
I suspect MUCH of the reason why the size of offspring is often so unpredictable is that the early pedigrees, in BOTH registries, are so often completely unreliable. Heights were either 'guesstimated', or downright lied about; mares were run with several stallions, colors are STILL being incorrectly reported or described, etc.(things which I suspect are often STILL happening, BTW....yes, it will take awhile, but eventually, the various 'tougher' requirements of DNAing(and PQing, which should be automatic),and requiring GOOD photos, should make it more possible to actually be able to rely on pedigrees to help make breeding decisions, with a somewhat more predictable result. NEVER will it be fully predictable; anytime a single characteristic(in this case, HEIGHT) is the 'most important' one being bred for, there often can and will be unpredicable(and sometimes, undesirable)consequences.
Julie(R3)was ABSOLUTELY 'on point' when she stated that the stated aim in AMHA is to breed for the most correct, SMALLEST horse-NOT the best driving horse!! I love driving as much as anyone, and in fact, that is a big reason why I acquired, two years ago, a maximum, 38", R mare(honestly, I don't much care that she is registered; I wanted a horse with more power, yet still small enough that I could use the same driving vehicles for both it and my bigger A's(I have several HONEST 34"s, and just-under-34"s, driving horses.) However, I don't see wanting to drive as a valid reason for throwing out the 'breed' standards--and laxity in this regard will unquesionably lead back to taller and taller animals, IMO. Question is, is that what most Miniature horse breeders, owners, and users WANT?? Personally, I foresee a 'division' into the very small and the 'tall'(oversized horses are already being allowed to show, at the highest levels, whether most of you realize it or not....)-with few horses 'in between'....????Not what I want, but what I think may happen.....
Bottom line--unless and until the heights of ALL horses purported to be Miniatures, whether A - only sized, or 'over' R, are properly VERIFIED--AND owners, breeders, and the registries decide what they want to have--a BREED, or a HEIGHT REGISTRY- many of these issues will continue to be problematic......
Margo
So I am not looking for any response..or for you to agree or disagree.. . I would just like the opportunity to express my thoughts and feelings that I have had for the past going on 20 years..
