Closing AMHA Registry

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JWC sr.

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
1,359
Reaction score
11
Location
Santa Fe Texas
How does everyone feel about the closing of the AMHA registry in light of the research and presentation John Eberth gave at the annual meeting last year on dwarfism and the genetics of AMHA horses.
default_wacko.png


Are we being short sighted and setting ourselves up for problems in the future?
default_new_shocked.gif
 
I definitely think its a huge mistake. For the reason you posted and financially.

I dont really think they will do it though. But I guess time will tell.

Kay
 
I can't say that I'm really for it or against it at this point. I've hardshipped in some great horses; all were well under 34". Some were shown AMHA after that and won and the others went on to produce show winners.

I strongly disagree with the thought that if we close the registry we will increase dwarfism or have more genetic problems. Breeders need to look outside the box.
 
Can you explain for me what you mean by outside the box? If Eberth is right then a large percentage of the backbone of the prominent bloodlines of all of our horses are carriers. Which scares the heck out of me, to tell the truth. We have been lucky and never produced one and don't want to buy into all that heartache etc, in the future.
default_wacko.png


By the way, Hi Becky. LOL
default_saludando.gif


Thanks,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that they should wait until there is a proper test for dwarfism.

Let us have the opportunity to KNOW if our horses carry the harmful genes or not. If they come out with a mandatory test, and all horses which carry the gene taken from the gene pool, and/or lose their registration...it would be a good idea to allow hardshipping for several more years.

If it is found that there are not as many carriers as first thought to be, and they are FINALLY, and TOTALLY removed from the genepool...I cannot see that it would affect the breed by closing the books within a decade of this testing and subsequent culling.

A lot of this would be "easily" repaired by the breeders themselves, if those who KNOW their breeding stock produces dwarves would just STOP BREEDING THEM.
default_no.gif
default_no.gif
 
I think we MAY be setting ourselves up for problems in the future, but of course, only time will tell. I see the idea behind closing the registry, and agree that long term, it needs to happen. I am just not sure that the gene pool is large enough at this point. I wonder how the size of the gene pool in AMHA compares with other registries that decided to close - not that that should be used to decide anything. The other breeds don't have the problem with dwarfism that plagues miniatures, and until there is a test for that, I think closing the AMHA registry is premature.

I also think when the test for dwarfism is available that education is needed, not a knee jerk reaction to eliminate all carriers immediately. This would provide the opportunity to identify carriers and remove the gene gradually through selective breeding to non-carriers.
 
John, to quote you,

Can you explain for me what you mean by outside the box? If Eberth is right then a large percentage of the backbone of the prominent bloodlines of all of our horses are carriers. Which scares the heck out of me, to tell the truth. We have been lucky and never produced one and don't want to buy into all that heartache etc, in the future.
I think you just answered your own question. If a large percentage of the prominent bloodlines are carriers of dwarfism, yet your farm has never produced one (assuming you are using prominent bloodlines), then perhaps genetic dwarfism isn't quite as rampant as has been thought previously? Certainly, there are genetic defects in every living plant and animal. I do hope in the future that tests will become available for miniature horse breeders to utilize in their breeding programs to lessen the chance of continuing any genetic defects that are hereditary. But, there are environmental issues that breeders need to be aware of that will produce defective fetuses/foals as well.

I don't see how closing the studbooks will increase the chances of producing genetic flaws?

Though this topic has been discussed on here previously, I think it makes for great discussion and I am glad you brought it up again.
default_smile.png
As breeders, we need to be aware of all possibilities that may occur when we commit to breeding!
 
It hadn't even occurred to me to worry about the size of the mini gene pool yet. Most of my concern was focused on what happens to the individual horses who now have no chance of papers regardless of their quality. Some very nice would-be B minis are out of luck since AMHR closed their doors and once AMHA closes the books there's going to be a lot of horses left out in the cold. At least as things currently stand someone could be interested in buying that unpapered horse because it could be hardshipped into AMHA and shown. Without that option, what's left? Child's leadline horse, lawn ornament, unpapered "foal mill" breeder, or if they're lucky participation in some sort of open event like 4-H, local saddleclub shows or the American Driving Society. Why would anyone limit their options that way when they can do the same things with a papered mini? I'm not saying unpapered minis are worthless- the opposite in fact, and the careers I mention are honorable ones with the exception of the foal mill. But I see that possibility of registration as a potential lifeline for an under 34" horse, something that may make someone go ahead and buy him instead of passing him over. Why take away that chance when so many of our horses are already being given away in this economy? Our minis deserve every opportunity we can give them for a happy life and just because the breeder was too lazy doesn't mean the next owner shouldn't be able to rectify that mistake.

targetsmom said:
I also think when the test for dwarfism is available that education is needed, not a knee jerk reaction to eliminate all carriers immediately. This would provide the opportunity to identify carriers and remove the gene gradually through selective breeding to non-carriers.
Agreed!

Leia

P.S.- Forgive me if any of the above doesn't make sense, I'm more than a bit muzzy-headed this morning.
default_wacko.png
 
I have a couple of thoughts here….and a couple of questions……..

1. In the 90s, when AMHA was researching DNA testing, Frank served on the Genetics Committee and accepted the task of investigating a number of genetic testing laboratories. (this because of his job/experience within the animal health industry). During that time Frank mentioned that the geneticists at these laboratories commented as to the AMHA miniature horse having the most diverse genetic make up of any modern day horse breed.

So my question is……..Has something happened in the last 10-15 years to change that diversity? (I find it hard to imagine how that could occur in such a short time span)

2. Since it is well agreed that the miniature derived much of it’s genetics from the Shetland Pony, how would it benefit the genetics of the AMHA miniature horse to ad back in the Shetland genes which may very well be where some of the dwarf genetics originated in the first place? (To clarify, I have been told by a number of people that the reason some don’t want the registry closed is so that they can bring in more Shetland Pony blood and when I look at web sites and advertising I do see some farms having Shetland Pony breeding programs as well as AMHA Miniature Horse programs…Stands to reason they might want to cross the two breeds they like and use)

I find this subject very interesting and hope we have a lot of replies with differing opinions. Something may be brought forward that is new to me……I love LB for these opportunities to brainstorm!

And now I’ll throw in my opinion here……. you know I am ‘The Opinionated One’.
default_biggrin.png


I would like to see the AMHA registry closed. I see the AMHA miniature horse evolving into its’ own breed type which is unique within modern day horse breeds. They are truly heading toward a balanced and correct under 34” horse that breeds true, but the infusion of characteristics of other breeds would dilute and retard that progress. I don’t want to see the progress lost. I don’t want to take a step backwards.

Charlotte
 
I want to add another thought here. Aside from the dwarfism issue, is the issue of height. A number of years ago, when AMHA was young, it had a division for Foundation Oversize horses. Because of the rarity of under 34" horses, those over that height could be registered and their offspring were eligible for registration as well. Initially, this was good for AMHA. But over time, with the numbers of under 34" horses increasing, AMHA voted to close the division for over size horses. Was that a bad thing for AMHA? I don't think so.

Those that are wanting to bring in horses now with taller backgrounds, need to be aware it will only cause the overall height of the AMHA gene pool to increase. That is a fact. I for one, choose to breed under 34" horses and the farther away from over 34" horses I can keep in my pedigrees, the more likely the horses I produce here will stay under 34" at maturity. That is what the AMHA was founded on and that is where I hope it continues to stay and grow.

Just some food for thought......
 
...During that time Frank mentioned that the geneticists at these laboratories commented as to the AMHA miniature horse having the most diverse genetic make up of any modern day horse breed.
I was certainly not aware of this - one of things I love about LB is how much I can learn!!! This would certainly be a factor in support of closing the registry, but I would still like to see that test for dwarfism first. Does anyone know when it should be out? I had heard this summer, but summer is over.
 
To me the biggest questions is, "is AMHA a height registry or a breed registry?" If AMHA closes the books to allowing under 34" horses to be registered as an AMHA miniatuer, the I guess AMHA is saying it is a "breed registry". Meaning, all AMHA miniatures will have AMHA miniature parents only. OK, that is fine. Then let AMHA identify itself as a breed registry. However, being a breed registry, then all offspring of AMHA parents should be eligible for registration, regardless of their height. Even those occasional "throwbacks" that come out of small parents and are born so tall you wonder how it got out of there.

It does not make sense to have it both ways. And I don't think it should be both ways. Either 1. height registry where all miniatures under 34" at maturity are welcome for registration, or breed registry where AMHA registered horses are all those that are produced by registered AMHA parents regardless of the offspring's height at maturity.

Does this make sense to anyone else?
 
Those that are wanting to bring in horses now with taller backgrounds, need to be aware it will only cause the overall height of the AMHA gene pool to increase.

the biggest questions is, "is AMHA a height registry or a breed registry?" If AMHA closes the books to allowing under 34" horses to be registered as an AMHA miniatuer, the I guess AMHA is saying it is a "breed registry". Meaning, all AMHA miniatures will have AMHA miniature parents only. OK, that is fine. Then let AMHA identify itself as a breed registry. However, being a breed registry, then all offspring of AMHA parents should be eligible for registration, regardless of their height. Even those occasional "throwbacks" that come out of small parents and are born so tall you wonder how it got out of there. It does not make sense to have it both ways. And I don't think it should be both ways. Either 1. height registry where all miniatures under 34" at maturity are welcome for registration, or breed registry where AMHA registered horses are all those that are produced by registered AMHA parents regardless of the offspring's height at maturity.
No, we do NOT have to accept or keep the oversized horses, even with a closed registry. Every other breed registry I know of, in the beginning of it's inception, layed down ground rules within which they chose to grow their breeds. Quarterhorses were allowed no "high" white, Fresians nothing but black, Morgans disallowed unusual colours, Appaloosas would not allow horses of no colour...etc...and although the rules have changed for some of these breeds in the past decade...the rules at the time were followed stringently, and were there for a reason..to build a standard...a BREED.

Also, there are height rules for most breeds as well, so that is certainly not just a Miniature Horse "thing".

We too, can do that.
 
Is there a video available or a transcript of the dwarfism presentation from the meeting? I would be very interested in hearing it.

Thanks :)
 
I agree with Laura. Once the books close, an AMHA horse bred to an AMHA horse should produce an AMHA registered horse.

The horse shows will limit height and discourage breeding of oversized horses. This will open the doors though for people to hardship oversized AMHA horses into AMHR.

I hate to see horses lost to the gene pool because they grew a bit too tall.
 
I guess historically if you look at any breed they are started with a relatively small handful of horses that fit into the new breeds standards so I don't know if we are dooming our breed to anything beyond what we always are going to see.

However my objection to closing the registry has always been financial. I believe that the money from hardshipping would be better served in gelding programs like the AQHA incentive where every enrolled gelding at any show that wins a point gets a cut of the pot. Doing so would have a trickle effect in so many areas.

a. increase in gelding prices, most likely marginally but an increase non the same

b. if we make geldings profitable there will be more geldings which is always good for a breed

c. if we make showing profitable or at least offset the cost there will be more support for shows

d. Geldings have long been our base price, if we raise the price of gelding the horse market overall should rise.

Hardshipped horses represent such a small fraction of our numbers why not use the money from those horses to fuel a revolution in the industry rather than cut off our nose to spit our face.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hose that are wanting to bring in horses now with taller backgrounds, need to be aware it will only cause the overall height of the AMHA gene pool to increase. That is a fact. I for one, choose to breed under 34" horses and the farther away from over 34" horses I can keep in my pedigrees, the more likely the horses I produce here will stay under 34" at maturity. That is what the AMHA was founded on and that is where I hope it continues to stay and grow.
Well going oversize is obviously already a problem in AMHA. This is why so many are hardshipped AMHR when they go over 34. Or as we all know they just keep showing them and insist they are 34 LOL. The very first mini I bought 9 years ago went over 34". (shes 35) Even though her pedigree showed all small (but then again you cant go by pedigrees as so many "fudge" on heights) Now she has to date had many foals and none of them have gone over 34" even when I bred her to my ASPC/AMHR 36.5" stallion

So you cant say adding Shetland back in is what causes height problems since the height problem has been there for many years
 
This is an interesting topic, and there have been a few points brought up in here that I hadn't really thought about. I am against closing the registry. There are many, many fine under 34" horses that are more than worthy of an AMHA registration. I hardshipped one mare last year and am going to hardship my gelding after the 1st of the year, in order to show him. They are both unbelievable movers, and my mare may even help spur along the performance aspects of our breed through her foals, one area that is growing in leaps and bounds. After I hardshipped my mare, who was pregnant with an AMHA stallion, I futurity nominated her foal. Yeah, that is a lot of money in the coffers, and it does extend far into the future, well past the original hardship fee which is, by the way, not that insignificant in and of itself. It isn't just the mare, it is her babies, their registrations, their show fees, possible new memberships, and so on. And let's just make an educated assumption right now that no one in their right mind is going to pay $600 - $1200 to hardship an animal that isn't exceptional. It just flat out doesn't make any sense. Bpth of these horses were already registered AMHR, and the breeder had made a decision that they were only going to work with that registy. My gelding is, in fact, half Shetland. He is 33", and I would dare to say that you'd have a hard time telling him apart from any other high quality mini. My mare has no Shetland in her recorded background. All mini. Anyway, I feel it was well worth the investment to go ahead and hardship these qualifying animals.

I concur with Leia (HobbyHorse23) about the welfare aspect. I also agree with sdmini about increasing the worth of geldings through forward-looking incentive programs. We have just GOT to get to a point where everyone in the world buys a mini or three just to breed them. Right now, I would take my hardshipped mare over many, MANY of the AMHA horses being bred right now. Just because a mare or stallion has A papers doesn't mean it meets the breed standard and is producing outstanding foals. That is a FOR SURE. I would be willing to bet that most hardshipped animals meet or exceed a regional show winner in quality, merely due to the investment required to hardship them. You can go buy an "A" registered mare for $150 and hey! You're in business. This side of our breed really is a bad scene.

For these reasons, I was and remain AGAINST closing the registry.
 
The question, how do I feel about closing AMHA Registry.

I have no problem with it. Change can be good.
 
Well going oversize is obviously already a problem in AMHA. This is why so many are hardshipped AMHR when they go over 34. Or as we all know they just keep showing them and insist they are 34 LOL.
Ok let me take a stab at this. Height is never going to breed true BUT your chances increase when your gene pool is from generations of under 34". Every time you add a horse from stock that is NOT 34" and under you've increased the odds of throwing oversized. Simply put which has more of a chance of oversized foals, a 32" horse bred to 32" with generations of 32" or a 32" horse bred to a 32" that has no immediate relatives under 34"? Your right just as in AMHR there are plenty of horses that by the height rules should not have their papers.

No, we do NOT have to accept or keep the oversized horses, even with a closed registry. Every other breed registry I know of, in the beginning of it's inception, layed down ground rules within which they chose to grow their breeds. Quarterhorses were allowed no "high" white, Fresians nothing but black, Morgans disallowed unusual colours, Appaloosas would not allow horses of no colour...etc...and although the rules have changed for some of these breeds in the past decade...the rules at the time were followed stringently, and were there for a reason..to build a standard...a BREED.
Also, there are height rules for most breeds as well, so that is certainly not just a Miniature Horse "thing".

We too, can do that.
AQHA fought and LOST that argument in the courts. Now any horse from two AQHA parents must be eligible for AQHA registry, this includes excess white (including body white), double dilutes and embryo transfers. This all took place in AQHA's home base of Amarillo TX. Appaloosa's & Paints have long allowed a QH cross, even if the resulting horse did not have color they still remained in the association. A lawsuit would cost the association a huge amount of money even if they won and with the precident already set I don't see how they could win it. I'm sure AQHA didn't think they could lose either.

I have long been told that the lawyers have said that the thing that shelters AMHA from a similar lawsuit as AQHA is that they are a height breed rather than a breed. I don't know if it's true or not but most certainly those against letting 34"+ in but for closing of the registry should take pause. If we close the door on hardship but allow 34"+ in we have, increased AMHA numbers by more than the handful of hardshipped horses, throwing taller back into the gene pool anyways and denied ourselves the hardship money.

That's my opinion and remember you get what you pay for and I type for free.
default_wink.png
 

Latest posts

Back
Top