Big-Moving Minis Must Go ...

[disneyhorse]

I'm also not sure that everyone is understanding just exactly what a "MODERN SHETLAND" is. Are we talking just any extreme looking Shetland, or actually a MODERN shetland?

So far, very, very few MODERN Shetlands are showing in AMHR. And those I bet are pretty darn prized by their owners and trainers as they are extremely hard to come by. Even "under" ponies at Congress (under 43" tall) are hard enough to come by, much less one that can measure in as a Mini.

I personally would give anything to own a true Modern shetland that could measure in as a Mini. Even though others freak out about them. I think they are just beautiful. Some are as "pretty" as any Classic, but with shoes move impressively. Without shoes, most of them don't move above level and are perfectly suited for a miniature horse class.

Andrea

 

[~Lisa~]

I was trying to stay out of this topic but I have to say Who knew that when I decided to get into Miniatures many years ago I never thought that the day would come that to be competitive in the pleasure classes a small Hackney would be the way one needed to go.

And that anyone who felt they wanted to keep the Miniatures evolving yes but perhaps not evolving to a smaller version of ASPR would then be considered a pony bashing- uneducated-poor sport- sore loser.

I am in agreement with many both on this forum and those who prefer to stay off topics like this that it is indeed quickly becoming a sad day for many miniature horse enthusiasts..

Not saying that there is anything wrong with the Hackney or ASPC ponies or any other breed. It does not have to be black or white one can very much mourn the loss of what was a flourishing and popular breed without hating the breed it is now trying to become

For those that want to continue to say even though I own ASPC ponies Hackney bred at that I am truly a pony hating- ASPC bashing- sore loser so be it. Glad I have become such a focus in your lives never thought I was that interesting personally but hey nice to be noticed right

I can very easily love my ASPC ponies and not love the direction AMHR is headed. Just like I can easily love a friend with different opinions or love both my kids who are very very different from eachother. I am not sure why that is such a difficult concept for some to understand but not my job to make them understand it. Nor do I need to defend the love I have for my ponies and all the divisons of AMHR/ ASPC to anyone who doesn't agree with me.

 

[horsefeather]

Lisa,

I understand where you are coming from and agree with you.

Pam

 

[Minimor]

Lisa, I am surprised to hear you complain about Hackney breeding coming into AMHR considering that you have an AMHR mare that is 1/4 Hackney?

I am not sure why it is okay for people to bash the Shetlands coming into AMHR but it is not okay for others to defend those Shetlands that fit into AMHR? It is your right to believe, and say, that the Shetlands are ruining AMHR just as it is our right to believe, and say, that the Shetlands are not ruining AMHR.

I am also not sure where all these Hackneys are that some say are in AMHR already, apparently flooding all the Pleasure classes at Nationals. I've looked through a bunch of the photos from those classes & sure am not seeing classes full of Hackneys. Shetlands, yes, but not obvious Hackneys...put those photos up against photos from a Hackney show and there is a very obvious difference!

 

[dannigirl]

I find this whole thread amusing. We have raised minis here for more than 10 years. It didn't take us long to know that we like the over or "B" mini. We raised them because we like showing them. We now also have Foundation ASPC double registered minis. We have often been asked if our mini-only horses were shetlands as they looked like shetlands and when looking at my herd, it truly is hard to tell which is which in most cases. Granted, a couple are very obviously shetland and some are very obviously mini, but a majority of mine look like they could go either way. I have some very tiny foundation ponies and some very large minis. The hackney is mostly in the moderns. It cannot be in the foundation pony. I do show my foundations as both foundation/classic shetlands and then as AMHR over and sometimes under minis. I will take most of the herd I take to Congress to Nationals--with a few added minis and maybe minus one shetland that is over 38". As for driving, my 35.5" shetland showed in open pleasure at nationals and was not nearly as high stepping or high headed as he needed to be to compete against the minis this year.

 

[ownedbyapony]

IMO the Park moving horses in Pleasure need to be penalized. I went to a judges seminar, and asked why horses with excessive movement aren't being marked down, I was told BY JUDGES AND FUTURE JUDGES that there is no such thing as excessive movement in Pleasure. So until the JUDGES are being trained on what to look for in the Miniature Horse Pleasure class, might as well save our breath.

Ruffian,

I think once again I am going to have to explain my comments at the judges clinic. I responded to your post in February and will once again state my position.

The AMHR rule book does not dictate penalization of excessive motion in an open pleasure class. I have copied the class procedures below:

a. Walk: A free, regular and forward moving 4-

beat gait. The horse should walk energetically,

but calmly, with even and determined pace.

b. Pleasure Trot: The horse should maintain

forward impulsion while showing submission

to the bit. The trot is slower and more collected,

but the horse should indicate willingness to be

driven on the bit while maintaining a steady

cadence.

c. Extended Trot: This is a clear, but not

excessive, increase in gait and length of stride.

The horse goes forward freely, engaging the

hind legs with good hock action, on a taut but

light rein, the position balanced and

unconstrained

When the association dictates that excessive motion will be penalized, I will do so when I judge and you better bet that it will be presented as so at the judges clinics. Until that time I will judge by the rule book. If you had one of those excessive moving horses and were in a class where you were clearly the winner, how would you like to hear from a judge that you were penalized for excessive motion when there was no rule in place. Put the rule in place and I will follow it to the best of my ability.

Amber Montgomery

 

[Belinda]

All I can say Miss ownedbyapony is

and you must have your

ON !!! LOL !!

 

[Sanny]

IMO the Park moving horses in Pleasure need to be penalized. I went to a judges seminar, and asked why horses with excessive movement aren't being marked down, I was told BY JUDGES AND FUTURE JUDGES that there is no such thing as excessive movement in Pleasure. So until the JUDGES are being trained on what to look for in the Miniature Horse Pleasure class, might as well save our breath.

Ruffian,
I think once again I am going to have to explain my comments at the judges clinic. I responded to your post in February and will once again state my position.

The AMHR rule book does not dictate penalization of excessive motion in an open pleasure class. I have copied the class procedures below:

a. Walk: A free, regular and forward moving 4-

beat gait. The horse should walk energetically,

but calmly, with even and determined pace.

b. Pleasure Trot: The horse should maintain

forward impulsion while showing submission

to the bit. The trot is slower and more collected,

but the horse should indicate willingness to be

driven on the bit while maintaining a steady

cadence.

c. Extended Trot: This is a clear, but not

excessive, increase in gait and length of stride.

The horse goes forward freely, engaging the

hind legs with good hock action, on a taut but

light rein, the position balanced and

unconstrained

When the association dictates that excessive motion will be penalized, I will do so when I judge and you better bet that it will be presented as so at the judges clinics. Until that time I will judge by the rule book. If you had one of those excessive moving horses and were in a class where you were clearly the winner, how would you like to hear from a judge that you were penalized for excessive motion when there was no rule in place. Put the rule in place and I will follow it to the best of my ability.

Amber Montgomery

I've read post after post of people over the past few months complaining about "high-steppers" or "hackney-types" in the pleasure classes with excessive action and many people have criticized the judging or the judges for not penalizing those horses. I've pretty much stayed out of it and I do read and refer to our rulebook frequently myself but I guess it didn't hit home for me that the rulebook DOES NOT STATE that those horses should be penalized for excessive action until Amber (WHO WAS A NATIONALS JUDGE THIS YEAR) posted this.

It must be incredibly frustrating for carded judges to be criticized for their judging when they are doing the best that they can to follow instruction given at judges clinics and what is written as guidelines within the rulebook. I've also heard judges defending their pick in the show ring when asked why they picked a particular horse is because "it was the best horse in the class" not that they chose it because it had the most movement.

Related to the changes happening in the show ring and in the pleasure type horses that has triggered these discussions....the miniature horse is a height breed and it is difficult to have specific breed standards when for years/decades the criteria for the breede has been height-based. Until just few years ago you could hardship into AMHR any horse that fit the height requirement whether that horse was an appaloosa, a paint, a draft horse, a quarter horse, an arabian, a hackney, a thoroughbred....whatever. Shrink all of those different breeds down into the height requirement and you will see horses of all different shapes, sizes, colors and will see all different sorts of movement and personalities and like it or not they are going to be judged against each other and if you are showing horses you probably going to choose to lean toward owning and showing horses that are going to win in the show ring. Does anyone go horse shopping for or advertise for a horse that will get the gate at every show? NO. We are all looking for that special horse that has the talent, athleticism, personality, attitude and MOVEMENT that will win in the ring. Why else do people want to see pictures and/or video of a horse moving when they are looking to buy. It isn't because they are worried that the horse might have EXCESSIVE MOVEMENT.

We've got a wide variety of shapes, colors and types of minis/ponies in our own pasture here and they each have their own niche that they can excel at whether it is western country pleasure, country pleasure or pleasure. We even have a couple we've decided don't really fit well into ANY of the driving classes but they excel at obstacle and jumping so still have a role. We find their niche and they all have a job. We do have some "tweeners" that now fall somewhere in between types that I worry about but I will be working and driving them more during the off-season to try and get them to fit into a more clearly defined category.

Another thing for those that are mourning the loss of the "true mini" and sad about the changes happening to the breed. We have no stallions and we don't breed ourselves but I do watch the industry closely. We also go to a lot of local horse sales and see a lot of horses being bred over and over that I'd consider "old-style" minis. Small, short legs, long bodies, stocky build....they keep being bred and yet they really don't fit into what is winning now in the show ring so I guess they become "pet quality" and they end up selling at auctions sometimes for $50. I hear lots of criticism toward people that are choosing to change their breeding programs and choosing to breed for more refinement and more movement and they have minis that are going into the show ring and winning and their horses from their farm are selling for thousands instead of $50-$75. Erica is a good example of someone that is putting a lot of time, effort and thought into her breeding program and it is working for her. Put a horse from Erica next to a horse from a farm clinging to and breeding for the "old-style" mini and you will probably be looking at two very different type/style of horse.

Another thing is I even hear talked about and read about here on the forum is people criticizing others for bringing (GASP) that horrible "pony blood" into minis. Isn't a pony any horse under 14.2 and a mini any horse under 38"? If a mini measures out and goes over 38" doesn't he become a pony regardless of the blood flowing in his veins?

Didn't mean to rant about this but I've been sitting back and reading a lot and watching discussions without weighing in and finally decided to speak up about it and share my personal thoughts.

I know that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that it is right for people to stand up for what they believe in, I just feel like these topics have really been beat to death. The same discussions keep coming up over and over and I hope that at convention the topics will be discussed and laid to rest so everybody can move on.

For those that feel strongly for or against some of this I hope to see you at Convention voicing your opinions and standing up for your beliefs.

It will make for some good discussions and lively meetings.

 

[disneyhorse]

Yay Amber/Sanny, what a great post!

"Excessive" has a wide interpretation. I would take it to mean "above level" as "level" is often a term used with the Shetlands, since some can go level or above and most can't. But the Rulebook does not specifically state.

Andrea

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I 100% agree to Lisa's post. I know that others on here don't, and I'm sorry.

I just think its odd when people wanted the shetlands mixing in with the minis did people not realize this was going to happen? Their is no need for a seperate division afterall they are all miniatures, and their is no rule currently in pleasure that states excessive knee action to be penalized. So before a new division can be placed you need to change the rule for pleasure. Also it needs to be done anyways they need to really work on guidelines for country like they were able to for western.

This convention I feel is really going to turn heads. Which is why I have decided to attend atleast the miniature portion. That means once I get out of school at 10 pm I drive almost 5 hours to Little Rock and get some little sleep and drive all the way back after the meeting to attend class at 5:30. But I guess that will prove how much I do care about this registry.

 

[RhineStone]

Another thing is I even hear talked about and read about here on the forum is people criticizing others for bringing (GASP) that horrible "pony blood" into minis. Isn't a pony any horse under 14.2 and a mini any horse under 38"? If a mini measures out and goes over 38" doesn't he become a pony regardless of the blood flowing in his veins?

I have spent a little time on allbreedpedigree.com. Plug in a Miniature's name and see what comes up. If the horse has a pedigree that is beyond the last few generations, it will more than likely go back to registered Shetlands. My guess is that those horses that seem to "come out of nowhere" are also out of registered Shetlands or unregistered (read "not kept up") Shetland stock. Buckeroo - Shetland, Rowdy - Shetland, etc. Crossing "true miniatures" back with Shetlands is like crossing a Polled Hereford with a horned one. It's really the same breed. Yes, there is probably a rare few that have "something else" mixed in there, but come on....let's face it, it is a Shetland for the most part. It has just "evolved" as people have said here.

Do you really think that the present Arabian is just like the Arabian of the past...no way! How about the QH? You might as well put WP bloodlines in a different registry from the HUS lines from the Performance horse (reining, cutting) bloodlines! It's still the same breed but they are SO different! Western Pleasure horses have been bred to roll peanuts and go slow! More than likely you couldn't cut a cow or go over a jump with a WP-bred horse if you wanted to!

Just the same, as has been said, minis can and have "developed" into different breed types. I have them in my barn. Some are more low and long and other are more upheaded and ambitious! Why is one better than the other? Instead of focusing on "true miniature" style, why don't we focus on horses that are well-conformed and can move well, not "pitter-pattering", but with actual fluidity and round reach with natural knee action! Horses that can halter AND perform! Horses that are built "uphill" instead of "downhill", so they can track up and have endurance. (Little Dutch Warmbloods would be wonderful!

)

I have a mini gelding that is fluid and round. His dam is out of unregistered stock. My guess?....Shetland. Do I care? Not a bit. He can move and has been a GREAT ambassador for the mini breed. We only show ADS shows where there are all sorts of breeds shown together, Arabs, Saddlebreds, Fjords, Haflingers, QH, Morgans, drafts, etc. The judge has to pick from all these types. A good moving horse is a good moving horse, no matter what the breed or type. When some very "big horse" people watch my gelding move, they are amazed. I have had numerous people come up to me and say, "I don't normally like minis, but I like this miniature." Why do they tell me that? Because he can move. He doesn't pitter-patter! In pleasure classes against big horses, he is always in the upper ribbons!

We don't breed, so I urge you breeders to focus on horses that can move. They can move high or low, but with roundness, fluidity, and ability to reach forward. That will do more for the promotion of the breed than anything, regardless as to whether or not you split the "big moving" horses in the driving classes.

 

[tagalong]

This is why AMHA has the reputation of being for the rich and "elite"

You know, the only time I have ever heard that "reputation" is on this forum.

Whenever I was there, it was not comprised of the "rich and elite"...

And a lot of the same horses and trainers would also show at Nationals....

...and still do!

I see nothing wrong with qualifying for specific classes. And the classes you qualify in should be the ones you compete in at Nationals. Nationals will always be bigger than Worlds becuase you have an entire extra size division so I am never sure why people insist on comparing the two shows that way or in any way. Why not just enjoy them both?

Years ago, when you did not have to qualify for Nationals in any way - there were many disgruntled people who showed there and then complained that it was all politics etc. - when the difference bewteen their horse and the one that won the class was night and day. That always made me a bit sad. They felt that only the "rich and elite" could win... when actually it was those who were the most qualified in whatever class it was who usually won.

I think there will always be some crossing over and a fuzzy area for some horses in all the driving divisions.

As far as shoes for minins - I have seen them used many times for training and practice between shows... and then they were pulled before the actual show. So yes - even in minis, shoes are a training device...

FTR - I have never worked with a trainer who withheld water to get halter horses to tuck up... or tied their heads high to "build muscle". That last one does not even make sense - you would only build up the muscles on the bottom of the neck instead of the topline and that would be completely counterproductive - and pointless.

 

[disneyhorse]

As far as shoes for minins - I have seen them used many times for training and practice between shows... and then they were pulled before the actual show. So yes - even in minis, shoes are a training device...

FTR - I have never worked with a trainer who withheld water to get halter horses to tuck up... or tied their heads high to "build muscle". That last one does not even make sense - you would only build up the muscles on the bottom of the neck instead of the topline and that would be completely counterproductive - and pointless.

In my experience, withholding water and tying up heads high is WAY WAY more common than people shoeing their minis for action.

The tying up of heads is fairly uncommon... and just to note withholding of food and water is only for a few hours before the halter class, not for any extended amount of time in most cases... and withholding food also makes the horse more interested in "bait" during the class as well.

Andrea

 

[drivinghoss]

Actually shoes help some minis because the ground where some people drive their horses is very rough and hard on the horses' feet.

If you could show minis with shoes there would be less of them lame at the end of the show because the arenas are so hard.

And why not let them show with shoes and keep the height the same. Then the littler horses would have an advantage over the 38" horse

 

[ruffian]

miniatures are not be shod for various reasons, one of the biggest reason is that the miniature horse is not supposed to have artifical movement, and shoes can impact movement greatly. When AMHA and AMHR were created it was decided by those creating the registries to make this completely separate from the pony world. Thus no shoes. If 30 years of having miniatures, I've had one horse come up lame from a stone bruise. That lasted less than 1 day. IMO Miniatures don't need to be shod, and should not be shod.

 

[Minimor]

Oh no, not shoes on Minis. If people complain now about too much movement, imagine what they'd have to say about things if some of the Minis started wearing shoes in the show ring!!

I'd like to see the Minis left as natural as possible.

 

[Georgia]

Just for the record I don't show. I just enjoy my 2 minis. But I am concerned about the breed in that I've seen what has happen in the quarter horse breed with the breeding in of the throughbred. My daughter has shown quarter horses for years and I watched the hunter under saddle horses get bigger and lankier. A lot are more (15/16) than quarter to the point that you have to go way back to find a true quarter horse in their bloodlines. To me this is not a quarter horse. The same can happen to the true mini. How soon will it be that the mini will be more Shetland than True mini. I agree that change is good, But how far do you go. A mini that is 7/8 or more Shetland is that a true Mini or a small shetland. Both breeds have there place. Are we ready to totally redefine the breed. I not saying that a little shetland blood is bad, but how much is too much. This is just my opinion and I know that most people will disagree with it and tell me to stay out of it, but we can learn by other breeds mistakes.