Closing AMHA Registry

[JWC sr.]

Wow what a plethora of things to think about and comment on.

1. AMHA by its own by-laws is a height registry.

2. Even though we have never produced a dwarf, we do have a lot of bloodlines that have had dwarfs produced out of them by other folks.

3. We are lucky in that our main herd sire is Cherryville's Rio De Oro and he was hard shipped in a number of years ago(15 or so), so it may be that this has been the reason for the lack of dwarf offspring as it takes two carriers to produce one.

4. Height of adult AMHA horses does not regulate what they will produce with any consistency. Rio who is an honest 33 3/4" is a size reducer and over the years has produced numerous babies that were in the 32 and under area of size(along with a few that have went over to be honest). Again we have been flat lucky in that aspect. On the other hand we have another stallion that much smaller that consistently produces babies that push the limit. And he is from a well known line of AMHA horses.

5. Producing good quality geldings for the show ring and as pets is the best thing for this industry any of us can do.

6. AMHA needs the ability to have as much participation as far as number of horses in the registry and people involved in the registry as they can. At this juncture to eliminate anyone from being involved is financial suicide and we can't afford this action. Currently hard shipping adds 75 - 150,000.00 a year to the bottom line.

7. I would suggest that we make a partial move in this direction if that is what the majority of the members of the registry want much as AMHR has by letting in only AMHR registered horses to be hard shipped into AMHA. AMHR has done this with only allowing AMHA, ASPC horses to be hardshipped. Again inclusion is important and it would give us time for the dwarf testing to be perfected and put into place among other things.

8. I would really like to see some form of an over sized portion of the registry to be allowed for horses that are out of AMHA parents, but go over. It is the standard joke among many people that in most folks back pasture there are a few that are over sized, but still have the respective papers attached. What I would suggest is that those horses from AMHA parents that go over sized would not be allowed to show, but are allowed to produce AMHA babies that can show. Again inclusion is important to our registry.

9. For us as members of the registry to try and fool ourselves into believing we are a breed when we can't control height or hereditary defects or even color for the most part, is at best a marketing ploy in my opinion. That I do not need or want to be part of.

Okay there are a few of my thoughts, be gentle please. I am of fragile stature and mental frame of mind. LOL

 

[wpsellwood]

I think it should be closed, with the exception to the AMHR. The AMHR is closed to everyone but Shetland and AMHA ( I believe) doing this would allow some really nice horses in with a known pedigree and both registries end up being a breed with height restrictions.

 

[Magic]

AMHA needs the ability to have as much participation as far as number of horses in the registry and people involved in the registry as they can. At this juncture to eliminate anyone from being involved is financial suicide and we can't afford this action. Currently hard shipping adds 75 - 150,000.00 a year to the bottom line.

What I wonder is WHY is the registry so eager to cut off such a great income producing feature, especially in these tough times?

 

[midnight star stables]

I'd like to see them all open

What I'd like to know, is why AMHA gave a 5 year "warning window", before they plan to close off hardshipping, however, AMHR (as far as I know) simply ended hardshipping emediately after it was brought into effect, with very little, to no warning what so ever? I don't see how it was fair of AMHR, mainly for the same reason that AMHA stated when they wanted to hold off the 5 years before they closed - Some people had bought expensive stock in hopes of hardshipping when that animal was old enough. I assume the allowance of AMHA and ASPC horses was their way of being less harsh? I'm glad that that rule does stand though

But I am off topic, so I'll get off my soap box.

 

[midnight star stables]

Wow what a plethora of things to think about and comment on. 5. Producing good quality geldings for the show ring and as pets is the best thing for this industry any of us can do.

6. AMHA needs the ability to have as much participation as far as number of horses in the registry and people involved in the registry as they can. At this juncture to eliminate anyone from being involved is financial suicide and we can't afford this action. Currently hard shipping adds 75 - 150,000.00 a year to the bottom line.

7. I would suggest that we make a partial move in this direction if that is what the majority of the members of the registry want much as AMHR has by letting in only AMHR registered horses to be hard shipped into AMHA. AMHR has done this with only allowing AMHA, ASPC horses to be hardshipped. Again inclusion is important and it would give us time for the dwarf testing to be perfected and put into place among other things.

8. I would really like to see some form of an over sized portion of the registry to be allowed for horses that are out of AMHA parents, but go over. It is the standard joke among many people that in most folks back pasture there are a few that are over sized, but still have the respective papers attached. What I would suggest is that those horses from AMHA parents that go over sized would not be allowed to show, but are allowed to produce AMHA babies that can show. Again inclusion is important to our registry.

9. For us as members of the registry to try and fool ourselves into believing we are a breed when we can't control height or hereditary defects or even color for the most part, is at best a marketing ploy in my opinion. That I do not need or want to be part of.

Okay there are a few of my thoughts, be gentle please. I am of fragile stature and mental frame of mind. LOL

I really like all these points, but I absolutly agree with #8!

 

[manelyminis]

AMHA needs the ability to have as much participation as far as number of horses in the registry and people involved in the registry as they can. At this juncture to eliminate anyone from being involved is financial suicide and we can't afford this action. Currently hard shipping adds 75 - 150,000.00 a year to the bottom line.

What I wonder is WHY is the registry so eager to cut off such a great income producing feature, especially in these tough times?

I totally AGREE!!! And I have always wondered why AMHA makes their hardship fee so HIGH! I know for a fact that they lose a lot of hardship money by not lowering that amount to make it more affordable for everyone. All of my horses are both A and R registered. However, when I purchase a mare of filly that is A only I always hardship them into R because at only $200 for the hardship fee plus the $60 registration fee I can afford that. Having double registered horses gives me a broader base for marketing and selling my minis since some people want specifically one or the other. This way I cover all potential purchasers. BUT, I have had to turn down purchasing many really nice R only mares or fillies simply because I can't afford the $600 hardship fee for A plus the DNA fee, on top of the purchase price. There's a lot of money AMHA is losing by not making it affordable to hardship R horses, including all the money they would make for registering all the babies those mares and stallions would produce, plus the potential money for showing those babies. Seems like in these bad economic times both associations would look at how they can increase their revenue.

And John, you gave all of us some excellent points to consider! I especially agree with #8 as I too know of people with those 34+ mares that produce smaller babies. Why lose out on those babies that can be shown and then later produce??? Another way to increase revenue for the association.

 

[LaVern]

I don't give a hoot what they do anymore. It's all NUTS in my opinion. To try to base a breeding program on what may be changed from year to year in crazy. I feel that those who are breeding for horses and not registries will be the ones that will produce something to be proud of.

 

[sfmini]

I must really be stupid as I swore I would never post about any politicing after the verbal beatings I got but I just can't shut up.

Why are we closing the registry? Well just who is we? The membership. Members composed and submitted the rule changes to close originally with a 3 year window. I and a few others felt 5 would be more fair to allow people who had already bought babies with a plan to hardship.

The MEMBERS voted for the fee change. The concept was that only horses very worth hardshipping would be hardshipped. Geldings as non breeding horses are cheaper.

One thing I just don't get.

All this wishing 'THEY' would change this or that. Folks, you are 'THEY' Submit your rule changes before the annual meeting, you have a deadline of the end of the meeting but if you get them in before the meeting, the committees can review them and give feedback to the submitting person, then will work on any changes made at the June meeting and then with approval of the board (except for bylaw proposals which MUST go to the membership for vote) they go to the membership for vote at the following annual meeting.

Now, note I said to the board for approval, only those proposals that are potentially illegal, in conflict with bylaws, not practical or affordable are voted down. Anything else goes to the membership for vote.

Now, I am not going to argue about voting or even on this subject, so don't bother slamming me.

 

[sdmini]

Your right Jody and no flames here! Right or wrong we (AMHA members in attendance) got the chance to vote through or shoot down the proposal. I am perfectly content to leave things the way it is but just spit balling ideas.

 

[LaVern]

I should have said "we" instead of they. But it seems that we are so concerned about what "we" may do. Should I breed this way because this rule may go it affect at some time, or gee I better do this because this is maybe the way it will be in 2013. I had better hardship this one and breed it this way just to cover my hind end, because maybe no one will want them if I don't have seven sets of papers. It's just too much for my old head. I am just not going to worry about it anymore. Whatever, is fine with me.

 

[chandab]

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?

I think it makes sense, and I agree, one or the other. I happen to prefer the taller minis, so most of mine are R only, but three of them have AMHA papers they have outgrown. [There's something in the air or water here, as the breeder told me that she didn't expect my stallion to get much over 32", maybe 33"; he's 36". He's from a 29" stallion and a 34" mare; most of his siblings from the same sire are well under, even with other 33-34" mares.]

 

[Katiean]

I do not think they should close the registry. Just because there are a lot of really good horses out there that are infact registered and someone dropped the ball somewhere and papers were lost. I think if we can not re-register these animals it is a shame. The mare we are hardshipping was infact registered at one time. Everyone involved with the herd she came from says they were ALL registered. No one would come up with enough info to even try to get the papers for individual horses. What we were told was a man went to OR and bought 40 minis. Mares, geldings and studs. He put his little herd out in the field and had great pleasure just watching his horses. Well, he died. All of these registered horses were sold with out papers. Now they can not be shown. Now their offspring can not be shown and just because of a poor fileing system. If we close the registry we are shutting out a large number of very nice horses that could be the next Boons Buckaroo or Roudy or any of the other top studs. Could we have done with out those horses as a registry? Some say we could have but I say no we could not have done with out them. Then lets look at the financhial part of it. The cost to hardship a mare is $600. For a stud it is $1,200. Geldings are going to be $200 come the first of the year. That is a lot of money for the registry to be giving up.

 

[Dontworrybeappy]

Are we being short sighted and setting ourselves up for problems in the future?

YES

 

[HGFarm]

Great question John!

Knock on wood, I have never had a dwarf foal either..... but it can happen to anyone at any time.

I think closing the books with AMHA is a mistake and limiting the gene pool..... and I still see many nice Minis out there that are unregistered for some reason.... owners passed away, no paperwork done, purchased somewhere and no one knows the background, but they are a nice example and very loved family horses that could make great youth horses, etc... that do not have papers, and will be unable to get any.

Also, I will say it, but I think there are a lot of nice R horses or Shetlands, that carry different bloodlines that meet the criteria to be registered A as well, that could/would add a lot to the breed too in the way of refinement, movement, etc.... and all the above will be turned away. Many of the 'founding fathers' were Shetland!

I am sad to see the books being closed, as this will always be a 'size breed' and not a breed (I'm sure I will get flamed for expressing some of my thoughts here) and this is going to limit it to what ever we have now, with nothing new ever coming in. I just dont think it is doing the Miniature any favors.

I was just as sad to see the R books closed to hardshipping, for the same reasons, though they at least still allow A horses to come over and Shetlands.

I find the A hardshipping fees are NOT 'user friendly' to most folks, especially in today's economic times, but there has been nothing offered as an incentive for folks to get this done either, before the books close for good, by way of at least a small break on prices.

As the years go by, and many horses papers are voided for various things (oversized, lost, owners only show R, I've seen a variety of reasons) the gene pool will eventually get smaller and smaller, because no other small equines who fit the criteria will be allowed in to keep the numbers up and the gene pool a bit broader by being able to get any papers.

I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing this........

 

[minimomNC]

How do you know you would be adding something different to the "gene" pool if you don't know the pedigree of a horse you want to hardship? How do you know its not the same gene pool that you already own? And if the gene pool is so small, what are the others that you think can be added? I keep hearing that closing the book will limit the gene pool but no one has really said where all of these new genes are coming from. And if you could add them, how would you know you did if you don't know the background of the horse.

 

[JWC sr.]

I can't answer for anyone else, but ourselves. The only horses we have hardshipped into AMHA were AMHR horses that we know the history and background of. Even though it shows unknown on the AMHA papers that is not the case for us anyway.

There is a little bit of known bloodlines in the background of the horses we have hardshipped in from an AMHA standpoint, but it goes back to the shetland side of the known bloodlines that are in AMHA registried horses. So in reality even though there is a chance of having the genetics there, according to Eberth he has not found an instance of dwarfism in the shetland lines so far.

Hopefully that is the case and when the testing does come out, we can get a clean bill of health for our horses. I like everyone else we can only hope and pray that is the case anyway. Till we know for sure.

 

[krissy3]

I'd like to see them all open

What I'd like to know, is why AMHA gave a 5 year "warning window", before they plan to close off hardshipping, however, AMHR (as far as I know) simply ended hardshipping emediately after it was brought into effect, with very little, to no warning what so ever? I don't see how it was fair of AMHR, mainly for the same reason that AMHA stated when they wanted to hold off the 5 years before they closed - Some people had bought expensive stock in hopes of hardshipping when that animal was old enough. I assume the allowance of AMHA and ASPC horses was their way of being less harsh? I'm glad that that rule does stand though

But I am off topic, so I'll get off my soap box.

Actually the year I hardshipped my Gelding into AMHR I was told that in 3 years time the hardshipping would be closed. So I knew 3 years before.

 

[manelyminis]

Pardon me if this has already been mentioned, I'm new here, but on the dwarf issue, isn't it thought to be true that BOTH parents have to have the gene in order to produce a dwarf? So once we know the genetics, as long as we breed a horse we know is positive for it to a horse we know is negative for it, wouldn't that solve the problem of no longer producing dwarfs? I just would hate to see a lot of really nice breeding horses that produce quality babies no longer wanted or used because they tested positive. At least that seems like a solution for RESPONSIBLE breeders, but I guess that's the KEY word. And to get back on topic, it would seem even better for the bloodlines and gene pool to leave the registry open.

 

[Katiean]

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?

I know in dogs and rabbits that if they do not meet the Height/weight standard they can still be bred and their offspring are registered. However, When I was showing Mini Rex Rabbits and at the top of our game, we did not breed oversized animals because what you breed is what you get. Also, I was breeding Yorkies and I had a contract for pic puppy. My female had one puppy and I had to surrender that puppy for the fee. That was not the problem. The problem was the pup had one front leg longer than the other. I did not want to sign the registration papers. I called AKC and they asked me if both parents were registered AKC. I said yes. They said that I had to sign the papers. They have since provided restricted registration. But that can also cause a smaller gene pool if someone just wishes to limit their bloodlines for breeding. I think they (AMHA) should just leave things alone.

 

[Sue_C.]

So once we know the genetics, as long as we breed a horse we know is positive for it to a horse we know is negative for it, wouldn't that solve the problem of no longer producing dwarfs?

Even if this is proven to be true...to breed a positive to a negative still gives that small chance for the gene to be passed on to the other generation. This is true of other genetic mutations such as HYPP, so I would think it possible with dwarfism.

The way I see it, two positives give a 50% chance of a dwarf foal, but a positive bred to a negative would still have a 25% chance of passing the gene on. Even if that resultant foal is tested, (and they all should be if a positive parent is involved) and people know it too is a carrier...how can we erradicate this gene if we continue to breed it at all?

I would like to be wrong on this...??