Discussions of pros/cons of proposed amendments...

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

CheyAut

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
1,767
Reaction score
11
Location
Arizona
I agree with the others on here... if going permanent requires an official measurer, I'm done with AMHA.
 

Southern_Heart

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
1,332
Reaction score
0
Permanent certificates of registration shall be issued to qualified Miniature Horses who have attained the actual age of five (5) years, and measures thirty-four (34) inches or less in height, measured at the base of the last hairs of the mane while standing squarely on a level surface, and have met all the requirements of the Association. All horses going permanent will do so after achieving the required age and being measured by an AMHA certified measurer.
AMHA is dreaming on this one.
default_new_rofl.gif
Isn't going to happen. Good gosh just think of the money they will loose. Mine are double AMHA and AMHR so I guess I'll just stay with AMHR. Keeping life simpler for me.
default_wink.png


Joyce
 

sfmini

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
3,088
Reaction score
136
Joyce, AMHA did not propose that, a member did.

Next month when the committees meet, this and other rule changes on that list will be reviewed, and may not make it to the membership for vote.

ALL bylaws will, but the other rules can 'die' in committee.
 

ClickMini

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
3,622
Reaction score
0
I am a certified measurer, does that mean I can measure my own horses?

There might end up being a lot of certified measurers around. We had a clinic here to become certified about 14 months ago, and there were quite a few people attending. We had horses in that we had to measure in order to pass. I was a little surprised at just how little variation there was between the measurements on each horse.

I also think this proposal is going a little too far. While the intention is excellent, it really puts too much hardship on the breeders/owners.
 

maestoso

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
905
Reaction score
3
Location
Southern Maine
The only proposal change I am going to address is the one on the mail in ballots.

I am 100% for keeping the voting system exactly as it stands now, regardless of the small percentage of members who are actually getting to vote, and here's why;

Maybe only 60 people show up for the annual meeting, however most if not all of those 60 people are informed on all of the issues, and they didn't all ban together before the meeting and put together a conspiracy to destroy the organization. I believe that they are trying to do what they think is best. Also, discussions are held out the meeting, structured discussions where people can state and more importantly hear other valid points from other informed members, which could possibly change their mind, or persuade them one way or the other. This is an important process in any "debate" and very important when making big decisions.

If this new mail in way is passed, we will now have hundreds and thousands of backyard "John Smiths" who don't have a clue who bought their fuzzy pet mini for $25 at an auction, voting on very important issues. Did anyone consider this? Have you thought about how this could affect the outcome of the voting? Do you realize that many of these people might be paper work savvy and can handle sending in a ballot but can't even find the withers on their horse? Or don't even know what an AMHA rated show is . . . .

Before you flame me, I have no problem with back yard mini owners who only keep them as pets, but I do have a problem with them voting on an important issue regrading the show process when they don't even know what a show is . . . .

In a year or so, when we are measuring our horses at the last bump of the knee will you still be supporting this new voting system?

go ahead and F.L.A.M.E. away . . . .
 

~Lisa~

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
2,525
Reaction score
0
Location
ID
keep them as pets, but I do have a problem with them voting on an important issue regrading the show process when they don't even know what a show is . . . .
NO flames just confusion those as you call them backyard breeders who have fuzzy pets well do you realize they bring in WAY more $ to the registry then those in the small percentage that show?

If only those few that show (and it is only a few that show compared to the huge numbers of members that do not) have the ability to have a voice then why not let just those few carry the financial burden of the registry?

I am not sure someone going to a show and walking in the ring means they have any more knowledge or rights then someone who doesnt. I am sure there are people on both sides of that coin as well as plenty in the middle.

I do not think mail in voting will happen in the near future but I do think it is something that needs to happen. It works for many other larger organizations AMHA or AMHR is really not all that different
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kaykay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
4
Location
ohio
I have to disagree Matt. The person that buys a mini at auction for 25.00 probably isnt going to do the paperwork and could probably care less what rules AMHA passes. Chances are they wont even transfer the horses papers

But it will let the majority (which is made up of the hundreds of small farms that breed a few every year, maybe show occassionally but support AMHA) have their voice heard.

I really feel it is a huge dis service to have 60 people voting for an entire registry.

For sure everyone has their own agenda when voting and we have seen this repeatedly in the past. Many decisions are made not for the good of AMHA but for the good of a small group of owners.

I really think both registries forget that the main bread and butter of both registries is the hundreds of smaller farms.
 

~Lisa~

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
2,525
Reaction score
0
Location
ID
In the point of fairness so this does not look like a bashing against AMHA.. AMHR is decided by even fewer people as the rules are decided only by the exec board they make all the decisions for the entire registry ( including which one of them will be President) short of membership voting for their area director.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kaykay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
4
Location
ohio
Very true Lisa. The 2 registries are set up completely different. I dont feel either one really gives a voice to the small farms that cant always afford to go to convention to vote etc. I do think in this economic environment both registries are going to have to start looking at where the majority of their money comes from and start supporting the small farms more and stop overlooking them because they cant attend convention or they dont actively show. IMO how often you show has zero to do with important bylaws and regulations of any given registry
 

Dona

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
3,377
Reaction score
3
Location
Piqua, Ohio
Maybe only 60 people show up for the annual meeting, however most if not all of those 60 people are informed on all of the issues, and they didn't all ban together before the meeting and put together a conspiracy to destroy the organization. I believe that they are trying to do what they think is best. Also, discussions are held out the meeting, structured discussions where people can state and more importantly hear other valid points from other informed members, which could possibly change their mind, or persuade them one way or the other. This is an important process in any "debate" and very important when making big decisions.
I am not in this for flaming, Matt. However, I also must disagree with what you state is your reasoning to support keeping the current voting system. You say that "...most, if not all of those 60 people are informed on all of the issues..." I have a hard time believing that. I believe that each person has maybe one of two issues that may affect them that they are willing to spend time and money to promote, and the time and financial ability to do that at a meeting. Your statement that "they didn't all ban together before the meeting and put together a conspiracy to destroy the organization..." Do you really believe that?

When an issue is important to people, I believe that they take the time to promote that issue with many, many people, emailing their support and reasoning for supporting an issue before a meeting. Have you not contacted anyone about disagreeing with these proposals and why you think people should work together to make sure these issues don't pass? I'm sure people have even "banned" together with a purpose to move forward an issue or two, meeting at shows or club meetings or just emailing their friends. I'm sure many thought processes have been worked out before hand in support of or against issues facing the registry. But most important is that prior discussions of the issues is not a conspiracy to destroy the organization.

You’ve stated that "...they are trying to do what they think is best..." I believe that this is everyone's intent. But we can see here that what you think is best is in disagreement with others here who have responded. And I'm sure there are others that have not responded here that are on "both sides" of the issue. But why should the 60 people with financial and/or time means available to them be the only ones whose opinions are considered in the overall functioning of the registry? Why are "their best intentions" any more important that others best intentions? I think realistically, KayKay is right, in that for sure, people have their own agenda when voting, and are not concerned for what is “best” for AMHA, rather what is “best” for what they want to accomplish.

Having voting limited to the 60 people in attendance certainly makes it much easier to get something passed, since you only have to “convince” –or, for that matter—“confuse” a fewer number of people for “just a few minutes”.

Also, discussions are held out the meeting, structured discussions where people can state and more importantly hear other valid points from other informed members, which could possibly change their mind, or persuade them one way or the other.
Isn't that what we're doing here? Or can structured discussions only be held at the meeting? Personally, I like having the time to think about people's statements, delving into the issue myself, rather than accepting what is said 2 minutes before a vote. I think that in some regards those types of "flash" decisions, supported by someone's "eloquence" mixed with a person's inability to take time to consider a statement, research the truth or consider the impact of a proposal is how some of these problems have arisen.


If this new mail in way is passed, we will now have hundreds and thousands of backyard "John Smiths" who don't have a clue who bought their fuzzy pet mini for $25 at an auction, voting on very important issues. Did anyone consider this? Have you thought about how this could affect the outcome of the voting? Do you realize that many of these people might be paper work savvy and can handle sending in a ballot but can't even find the withers on their horse? Or don't even know what an AMHA rated show is . . .”Before you flame me, I have no problem with back yard mini owners who only keep them as pets, but I do have a problem with them voting on an important issue regarding the show process when they don't even know what a show is . . .”
Thousands of small breeders foot the bill for the registries. Their fees and money cover show losses and other “poor decision making.” These smaller farms are the backbone of the registries, and should have an impact on showing rules and decision making. They are the “reality” that so many are facing. It sounds more like you are afraid if their impact on an “agenda” rather than “in general”. When does a backyard “John Smith” become a “breeder” or a person of importance? How many horses should a person own to be considered someone who can “render an opinion?” Everyone owning minis started with just one—so when did some become important and others stay “unimportant?”

KayKay, I think you have summed it up very well: “…I do think in this economic environment both registries are going to have to start looking at where the majority of their money comes from and start supporting the small farms more and stop overlooking them because they cant attend convention or they don’t actively show. IMO how often you show has zero to do with important bylaws and regulations of any given registry…” Amen.

default_aktion033.gif
Superbly said, Diane!
default_aktion033.gif
 

Mona

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
11,922
Reaction score
346
Location
Morson, Ontario, Canada
I also agree with KayKay and Diane's posts! Great points made in both.

Matt, as for your comment, I would just like to say that it shouldn't matter if members are well informed or not, in order to have a chance to vote. Just being a member SHOULD be enough to have that right. There are MANY citizens of countries that hold federal elections that vote that do not have a clue as to what each party represents/supports, but just because they are a "member" (if you will) of that country, they are entitled to cast their vote. Then there are also the many that don't vote, because they don't care, BUT, at least they were given an equal opportunity to do so.
default_yes.gif
 

Latest posts

Top