How many are interested in a legal AMHA over sized division

[HGFarm]

Since about 1940, the Quarter Horses allowed no horses into the registry with 'excessive white'. They STILL get cropouts with LOUD Paint color. They have had to change the ruling somewhat - how can you say that the offspring of 2 registered Quarter Horses is not a Quarter Horse?! They have DNA and generations to prove it. The Appies had colored horses for generations behind them and even breeding Appies with extensive colored backgrounds, you STILL get solid colored horses with no spots or even characteristics.

Breeding under 34 to under 34 is NOT going to breed out the gene that makes them mature at 35 or even 37 inches. I know of a horse that was out of a 31" mare with a tiny background and out of an imported stallion who was VERY tiny- about 29, with a tiny background. They had a foal one year that matured at 36 and yes, she because a top R driving horse. That pair of horses had been bred several times and had always produced under 34" horses at maturity. Except that one.

I know of another filly that is probably going to mature at 36. Her parents are both under, as are both backgrounds with many of them in the 30 to 32" range. How would the breeder keep this filly from going over? We have no control over what is produced from a particular cross. It obviously 'crops out', and will continue to do so.

Where does everyone think Miniatures came from??? PONIES, breeding down big horses and a variety of other things. The 'big genes' are in there and are not going to disappear.

In addition, there are dozens and dozens of height breeds out there.... including the mid and full sized ones who have a 'minimum' height at least and all pony breeds that I know of have a maximum height- some, like POA, have a minimum and a maximum. However, their horses that go over are allowed to remain as breeding stock only, with restrictions I believe that they be bred to horses within the allowed size range only for a registerable offspring.

Are all these horses World Champions? No, but all contribute in their own way, to the breed as a whole. The percentage of horses with the ability to become a World Champion are few and far between, and is a coveted goal, but not even what many of the top, long time breeders can obtain. It doesnt mean those horses are not worth breeding to keep trying.

P.S. Just edited to note that I also would like to see the current rules ENFORCED in the show ring. I think AMHA should follow their own standards set in their own rulebook. However, I am not against a Foundation Oversize BREEDING papered horse, just not in the ring. This is two entirely different subjects in my opinion.

 

[MinisOutWest]

I am just going to sit back and wait and listen. I am telling you, that stick is broken

and by-george, my 36" gelding will be hardshipped into AMHA before you know it. Both his parents are A's and he ate his broccoli when he was young and grew tall . But no matter what, I love him and I just show Pintos and R's with him anyway. The saga continues.. Till the next measurement!!!

 

[Relic]

I do not show.. but in Alberta AMHR shows are almost non existent if at all .. by allowing a B division within the AMHA more people would have a chance to show..

There has been a one day AMHR show held 2 years in a row in conjunction with the 2 day AMHA show but it has been attended poorly with any number of actual over 34 minis just mostly the double registered ones or farms looking to qualifiy in the under classes for AMHR Nationals. Allowing a B division as you stated would not bring out many more new people lMO locally to AMHA shows. The past few years less people are showing fewer minis or in less classes more due to the high cost involved in showing then the actual cheating going on regarding heights. AMHA needs to get a backbone and stand up for the rules in place not dilly dally and pussyfoot around the people who see fit to make more rules as they go along to suit themselves.

 

[loveminis]

I, personally, would not be interested in an "over" division. I would also not be interested in a "breeding Stock" division either.
The goal of AMHA is to breed the smallest most correct horse. If you continue to use horses that are on the "taller" side, that "tall" gene will continue to pop up. The only way to get closer to the goal of the smallest horse would be to "breed out" the taller gene. This will not happen in 10, 20 years. It will take centuries. The longer we keep breeding oversized horses we are only perpetuating the chance of getting taller horses. I feel that is what AMHR is there for. Just about every horse I have is AMHA/AMHR. If they go over they have a place to go. I don't think one organization is more elite than the other. A beautiful horse is a beautiful horse no matter how it is registered.

Just my own personal opinion.

I totally agree with what Karen at Nakar said

 

[maestoso]

LisaF, while women voting and segregation is not directly related to miniature horses or the registry, the principal is the same.

Laws were a certain way, people didn't like them, and they worked toward changing them. They did change them. The changes aided in necessary growth. I am sure you can understand this idea.

For those who are very much against this, I don't find your opposition to this topic disturbing, but what I do find disturbing, is your apparent opposition to any change at all.

Do you agree that growth within an organization is important?

And, if not through sharing new ideas and working towards changes that are desired, how do we grow, in your opinion? The question has nothing to do with the specific topic at hand, I am asking in general.

Yes we have foundations. Any rule that was set at the beginning of the registry is a foundation. So are you saying that you wish it to remain exactly as is, forever? This question is directly related to the growth question. Because if you answered yes to this question, logically, you should have answered "NO" do the first question.

I noticed that some of you who oppose "changing the foundation" are in support of changing where we measure.... how do you explain that? Where we measure, and have measured for a while, is also a "foundation". So, are you saying that only some foundations are important to keep in place but others are not?

You have every right to not want an oversize or breeding stock division. But opposing that is different from opposing changing the registry "foundation" rules. I don't like the idea that we are eliminating hardshipping, but it has nothing to do with what AMHA was built on. It has to do with my thoughts on how it will affect the gene pool.

I would like, if you don't mind, for you all to clarify weather your opposition comes from just not liking this specific idea, or if it has to do with not wanting to change the registry "foundation" because there is a definite difference.

 

[Minimor]

There has been a one day AMHR show held 2 years in a row in conjunction with the 2 day AMHA show but it has been attended poorly with any number of actual over 34 minis just mostly the double registered ones or farms looking to qualifiy in the under classes for AMHR Nationals.

I think that the AMHR division of that show will grow if the show committee continues to offer the AMHR division. I know I'd like to show next year--I wanted to show there this year but the way things went only one horse was fit enough to take--and it wasn't worth $400 in gas for me to haul one horse out there and then pay the outrageous show fees (class & stall fees were both more expensive than the Nationals fees!). The friend who did attend the show had a full trailer this year so I couldn't haul out with her... So, maybe next year. There's talk that the SK club will offer an AMHR show in future, so I'm HOPING for that one!
But to get back on topic... as I see it, it makes little difference if AMHA ever offers an oversize breeding division or not, because those taller horses are being used for breeding anyway and will almost certainly continue to be used for breeding. People are getting small foals out of those taller horses, and as long as they're getting foals that fall within the rules I'm sure they are going to continue as they are. They have a market for those foals, so obviously while there are a few that might point fingers & call these breeders dishonest, there are many more people who don't care. A nice horse is a nice horse, and if that nice horse fits within the size rule, they are happy to own it. I don't see that an oversize breeding stock section would ruin market prices. It would probably improve prices on some of the taller horses, just because there would then be a place for those horses within their own registry.

As tagalong mentioned, it's not feasible to send a committee around to all of the farms to measure all horses multiple times--and as far as I can see that's the only way you could ever eliminate those taller horses from the registry.

As more people push for the Miniatures to become a "real" breed that dream may end up becoming a reality--and if it does then the taller horses will almost certainly have to be kept in the registry (either registry)--because based on the lawsuits that have been won in other breeds it seems very likely that a similar lawsuit filed against AMHA would result in a court order which states a horse with two registered AMHA parents must be considered an AMHA horse and therefore must retain his/her papers. (If you like, substitute AMHR in place of those last 3 AMHA references.

 

[Royal Crescent]

I don't think I like the idea, though I might not mind if there was a breeding exceptions for those registered AMHA at foaling who go over by an inch or 2 so that their foals are registerable. Only if they start out aMHA though

 

[sdmini]

This is one of my favorite debate topics.

I have AMHA and AMHR horses some are single registered some are double. Typically what generates the most interest FOR ME are the AMHA or AMHA/AMHR horses. Even though LaVerns post was about the short sightedness of AMHA's only 34" and under rule she admits her pocket book has benefited from that rule, even if the horses were not the most astatically pleasing.

If AMHA was to suddenly say, sorry all of you that stuck by us thick and thin we are casting out the ideas you believed in when you joined our association and going totally against who we have been up till now I think they would take it rather hard. Please do not split hair about the foundation oversized, that was a brief snippet in AMHA history. When people are asked to describe AMHA one does not say they are 34" and under....except for those horses that remain from when AMHA briefly allowed 34"+ to be registered.

Now I do think it is only a matter of time before a lawsuit happens and AMHA is forced to take the overs so I would suggest being proactive and start looking at ways to ease into a over division.

What if when a horse went over they would lose all breeding privileges until the horse either a) accumulated X amount of point in a given halter/performance class or b) was rated by a judge and scored X or higher. Horse excepted back into the AMHA's breeding stock can only be bred to those 34" and under. Yes this would mean that "over" classes would be included into the AMHA shows but so what, more horses = more money for the shows. Just because a horse is over 34" does not mean it would be beneficial to include in our breeding pool. I think this should only apply to AMHA registered horses, in other words no hardshipping into the over division.

In a perfect world the above option would be excellent, IMO, for AMHA as it is still saying we strive for the perfect 34" and under horse but will acknowledge those that go over 34" and welcome back any of those that will forward our breed onto the next level. But really WHO would do it?!? It would be much easier to say, "ya sure that mare/stallion is right at 34", (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

Now as a person who loves debate I could point out that not all change is good or right. I think comparing change regarding African Americans and Women in this instance is just as skewed to your political agenda as someone who was opposed to a B division bringing up how wrong Hitler's "change" was. I think we would be better suited acknowledging both sides have points and seeing if there is a middle ground.

This is a topic I see lots of valid points to be made both for and against so don't be suprised if one day I argue for a over division.

 

[sdmini]

In AQHA's (headquarters located in Amarillo TX) one of their bylaws was that only one foal a year could be registered out of a mare. AQHA "high dollar" mares were being flushed and eggs fertilized with different stallions and placed in recip mares but the owner had to pick only one of the resulting foals to be registered with AQHA. IMO AQHA was silly not to let their rules catch up with Science but that's another post.

A lawsuit was brought against AQHA to allow all the resulting foals in. This cost AQHA tens of thousands of dollars and they lost. In AMARILLO it was ruled that any offspring from two AQHA horses in good standing must be allowed to be registered with the association.

Directly resulting from this crop out, even to the extent of max expression sabino, are registerable even though they had NEVER been allowed to do so before. Perlinos and Cremellos also were allowed in as "the hand writing was on the wall". Two AQHA parents MUST equal a AQHA offspring.

 

[minimomNC]

Thats exactly what AMHA needs to do, use what money they do have on a lawsuit to allow oversize horses to keep their registration papers. Then what happens? No money equals no registry so what good would it do in the long run. You would then have an oversize horse with AMHA papers as well as its parents and no association left to care what you have.

Just like the measuring rules being said they weren't thought out, neither is this issue. There are to many variables to address, one of which I have asked twice already and no one will answer. What will you do with oversize geldings???? If you don't have a place for them, there won't be any. Everyone will keep them as stallions and start breeding 37" stallions with AMHA papers.

My suggestion would be to allow for oversize mares only. They can only produce one foal a year, not several like stallions can. This will keep the good mares with AMHA and with their papers but not allow breeding of oversize stallions. This will allow for the gene pool to continue to grow but will not allow for every stallion foaled to be producing more foals. I guess I'm saying if you want oversize horses, make it mares only.

 

[shelia]

What I beleive, and maybe I am wrong is that adding the division will not increase the number of oversized minis. I do believe it will even out the playing field for those who are honest about the sizes of there horses. It won't stop cheaters or dishonest people. I would hope the stallions would not be used unless they are superb quality. I would hope any inferior stallions and colts would be gelded and go to pet homes just like any other horse that should not be bred. This of course requires people to police themselves just as they do now.

The only way we could insure good quality AMHA horses are the only ones being bred is to require a separate breeding certificate for each and every one. That would require every AMHA horse to be judged to be deemed worthy of producing offspring. It might get expensive, but it might be doable sometime in the future.

 

[Michelle@wescofarms]

Matt - another great post! Lots of common sense there.

The biggest objection seems to be people not wanting the oversize breeding stock is that it will somehow ruin what AMHA stands for. It goes on now, so its already an issue and always has been. The current trend, at least in the show ring seems to be horses that really are pushing the stick at 34" in both halter and of course they pretty much dominate in driving. Not saying its right, it is what it is. Look at the number of horses that compete in any height division. So all those that preach smaller most perfect, why aren't the numbers supporting that in the show ring. And I'm not anti-small. I'm a founding member of SHG and do support their goals and beliefs of promoting quality under 30" minis. I do personally believe there is room for taller minis too. I love this 'hopefully some day breed not just a height registry' horse in all the heights they come in!

The other point that I look at is whether you breed AMHA or AMHR if you want only (for example) 30" breeding stock - then you would never look twice at horses that are taller - why I feel accurate pedigrees/DNA/PQ are important. So the point of oversize ruining the registry - it isn't ruining AMHR by having the two divisions, but it does allow a foal from two registered parents to have a proper place in the registration - which currently AMHA does not. What if AMHR and double registered didn't exist? There would be alot of grade 'ponies' out there that AMHA threw out. And why should AMHR B division be the only alternative? I do hope AMHA is paying attention to what is going on with AQHA - the writing is on the wall. There are enough people with deep pockets that could pursue this legally and then the whole oversize losing their registration is a moot point.

What I was trying to get to is, if I wasn looking for a 30" or under stallion (for example) and I wanted as much of a guarantee as possible that he would sire in that range - I would NOT consider taller or oversize horses in his pedigree. It just wouldn't be part of my breeding program plan. No one can force anyone to buy B size or A size or AMHR/ASPC or whatever - its freedom of choice.

BTW - my tallest B mini has a small background - all AMHA registered five generations with nothing over 31" yet he's pushing 38" (yes his papers are pulled - a long time ago). He also has a half sister that is a dwarf, and the rest of the siblings that I saw were all under 32" - Go figure.

 

[tagalong]

Tagalong - I think you are incorrect - I think any horse at any size can have good conformation. I do not think you are correct in saying a 36" horse has better conformation than a 28" horse. It depends on the miniature horse.

Of course it depends on the individual horse - I did not say that every 36" horse is better than a 28" horse... I said it was not going to be the same... and that is completely true.

My suggestion would be to allow for oversize mares only. They can only produce one foal a year, not several like stallions can. This will keep the good mares with AMHA and with their papers but not allow breeding of oversize stallions. This will allow for the gene pool to continue to grow but will not allow for every stallion foaled to be producing more foals. I guess I'm saying if you want oversize horses, make it mares only.

That is a very valid - and workable - consideration, minimomnc... I like it.

Lawsuits towards AMHA for not allowing over sized horses - How can that be? Since AMHA is founded on 34" or under horses?

Just as sdmini outlined above - that happened with AQHA. You could have a perfectly fine cremello foal born to two AQHA parents - and yet he could not be reigstered AQHA. That darn pink skin rule again - onloy cremello or perlino was a body colour and not markings! No - not allowed. Did that make sense? No. And the white crop-out rule and the one foal a year rule were ruled out. There is a legal precedent for such things.

Lisa - in another thread you said you would support legal action against AMHA... somone else may do the same thing - and then, as I said earlier, it may be that AMHA X AMHA = AMHA. Or AMHR X AMHR = AMHR, for that matter.

If AQHA with all its wealth and backing can lose such cases... so would AMHA.

We'll just have to wait and see if that plays out...

 

[kaykay]

Years ago when I first got into miniatures I brought up doing an oversize breeding stock only division. I am glad to see more are open to it then years ago. When I was new and visited many farms big and small across several states one thing stood out to me. Every farm had oversize AMHA horses that they were actively breeding. My thought was to bring it out in the open so that correct heights would be on papers instead of all those 33.75 that are really 35-36".

One thing that has not been brought up is that AMHA is going to close hardshipping I believe I read as of Jan 1 2009 right?? If that happens I have heard that AMHR might also close to hardshipping AMHA horses. (which may or may not be true who knows for sure)

I wonder if AMHR ever does close hardshipping, then where will all those over 34" AMHA horses go when they cannot be cross registered into AMHR? For sure we do not need more grade horses!! From that standpoint it would be a rescue nightmare as people would dump those over 34" grade horses. I hate to even think about it

 

[minimomNC]

KayKay, AMHA gave time for any foals born this year to be hardshipped, so no it doesn't take effect next year.

 

[shelia]

KayKay, AMHA gave time for any foals born this year to be hardshipped, so no it doesn't take effect next year.

If I understood it right they are talking about horses who have reached ther 5th birthday, so only foals born that year they made the decision would be allowed. If the foal has not reached it's 5th birthday by 2012, (I think) it cannot be hardshipped. Adult horses under 34 can be hardshipped up to that point.

 

[shelia]

Accidentally posted twice.

 

[maestoso]

It is actually 2013

The rule allows for any foals born in 2008 to be hardshipped. Their 5th birthdays will all be in 2013. Any foal born in 2009 or later will not be eligible for hardshipping. Last I knew, this was the way it was, and still in affect, but I missed the memo when they backed out of the measuring change, so I could have missed another memo too...

 

[minimomNC]

The registry and stud book of The American Miniature Horse Association shall be closed effective December 31, 2013,

This is copied and pasted from the minutes of the Feb annual meeting. Any horse born in the year 2008 will be five years old in the year 2013 and can be hardshipped into AMHA. As of Jan 1, 2014 AMHA will no longer allow hardshipping, but there is time for that to be changed before it happens.

 

[R3]

Kaykay – If AMHR were to close their registry to AMHA horses, then the Oversize horses in AMHA would be treated the same way that oversize AMHR horses are. They would now be ‘grade’ too.

minimomNC - The term 'Breeding Stock' division is just one of many possible names. With what you are saying, maybe it is a bad one. I have heard another, that had something to do with pedigree verification, I can't remember now, but it had a good sound to it. So, let’s just call it something else for now… Maybe just Oversize Division (OD). Then, there wouldn’t be any question about whether a gelding could be eligible. A gelding would be allowed to be put in the division, if the owner wanted to. Unless there were classes for the oversize horses at AMHA shows though, the papers would not be of as much benefit to a gelding as they would a breeding animal. But, the papers would still be valuable, as some Youth programs and County fairs, etc. require Miniature horses that are shown to be ‘registered’.

As far as people keeping an OD colt as a stallion, vs. gelding it, I really don’t see that there is much difference between what happens now, and what would happen if there was an OD. Right now, there are people who sell poor quality, under 34”, colts as ‘stallions’ because they are ‘worth more’ as a stallion than a gelding. Too many breeders are already unwilling to geld a horse that they know is not really the quality to be a breeding stallion. I think it would be the same, not any worse, if there was an OD. The ‘problem’ would not be the OD, the problem would be the PERSON doing the breeding.

There have been several comments relating to the ‘overbreeding’ of miniatures, and that an OD would contribute to overpopulation. I guess I see these types of comments as kind of a double-standard. On one hand, I hear how one registry is ‘better’ than the other, because it has more registered horses. Or, that one registry is ‘better’ than the other because it has more new horses registered each year. I also hear how the fact that registrations are dropping, is a sign that a Registry is doing things ‘wrong’ and that people are not wanting to register with that group any more. All of those types of comment imply that ‘MORE’ is ‘better’. But now, when the topic is an OD, people are saying that we SHOULDN’T be having more registrations. Now, it seems that people want the Registries to encourage people to produce FEWER registered horses.

However, whether people want to accept it or not, it is the Registries mission to get people to breed, buy, and exhibit as many Miniature horses as possible. That is what makes a registry ‘grow’. Here are excerpts from the AMHA and AMHR Articles of Incorporation:

AMHA

ARTICLE IV

The purpose for which this corporation is formed are exclusively educational, scientific, and animal husbandry, defined as follows:

(A) Aid and encourage the breeding, exhibiting, use and pepetuation of Miniature Horses;…

AMHR

Article II – Purpose

The object and purposes for which the Corporation is formed are any and all lawful purposes under the Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation Act, as amended, including but not limited to the following: to improve and promote the breeding of Shetland Ponies, Miniature Horses and other equines…

This says to me that both Registries are wanting to AID AND ENCOURAGE and PROMOTE the breeding of miniature horses. So, where does that leave us? Are we wanting to follow the Articles of Incorporation, and breed MORE, or do we want breeders to produce LESS?