Lisa, First of all, you have not answered all of my questions, the important ones that I have asked, you have claimed that you don't understand the question, so, I will ask them again, but I will also answer your questions.
1. Do you oppose this idea because you don't like the idea of having taller horses, or do you oppose it because the foundation of AMHA started on 34" and under? There is a difference.
2. How do you think this will HURT the registry? And I am sorry but I don't believe that "It will wipe out all of the smaller minis" is a rational or logical answer. As stated before, most people breed for the slightly taller "A"s anyway, but there are still plenty of under 30" horses.
3. What is your position on change? And I mean any change. I don't really consider enforcing the rules and eliminating hardshipping "growth" but that is a personal opinion. But even if those were growth, let's say we fond a plausible way of enforcing all rules, and the registry was closed, after that, without change, how would we grow?
Now for some of your questions.
"I think the " AMHA Standard of Perfection" is for showing or breeding stock - I don't think we need two sets of rules - One for showing and one for breeding."
While height is stated in the standard of perfection, I don't believe it is the most important part. Conformation is most important, and height does not dictate conformation. If there were a breeding stock division, I don't believe that would be having a different set of rules, because those horses wouldn't be able to show, their purpose would be to produce horses that fit the standard of perfection, including the height restriction.
"Why should " the honest" breeder have to change the measurement height to keep " the dishonest" people happy?"
I have already answered this question. You are making a generalization here. You assume that everyone who wants this change is dishonest. You are incorrect. As I have said. I don't have an oversized mare, nor do any of my personal friends, presently, I have no gain by this rule change. You can't assume that the only people who want the change have oversized horses in their back yards, that is a ridiculous assumption. There are plenty of people in this thread alone who support the change and DO NOT have oversized horses.
"I think the first step is AMHA shows - They need to start STANDING UP - and NOT ALLOW a horse to show in the wrong height division. I don't care WHO you are."
That is a totally different subject and unrelated to the want for a breeding stock or over division. Again, I have already answered this. Enforcing rules is totally different topic, and I think most would agree with you that no matter what the rules are, they should be enforced. On a side note, I think this is slowly happening. I have heard that measuring at Regionals this year was unusually, and the rumor is that it's going to be far worse at worlds. I think the AMHA IS hearing its members and making attempts at least.
"Some say the oversize horse will always crop up - well, in my opinion if "some" people started being honest and didn't breed 34" and over miniature horses - this would eventually STOP happening."
This is also not a rational or logical assumption. Height is not a gene like for example the dwarf gene. If you have 2 dwarf carriers bred together you know you have a 25% chance of getting a dwarf, so with selective breeding, in years and years, that is something you could eliminate. There is no such prediction for height. No matter what you do there will always be minis that will go over that 34" mark, always.
"If AMHA started an over division size - then why would people pay two registries? In my opinion - Some would go to all AMHR and some would go to all AMHA - because it would save us money - we would NO LONGER need to pay money to two different registries. Wouldn't this hurt AMHA and AMHR financially?"
I don't believe it would. Many people double register their horses anyway. Many other choose to stay with one registry or the other anyway. AMHA offering an "over" division would be no different than AMHR offering an "under" division, which is already the case, if it isn't a problem now, why would it become a problem. I don't think those AMHR folks would come running to AMHA just because we offered n "over" division.
If we keep breeding "over" 34" miniature horses - there may be a day that AMHA will no longer be needed because all miniature horses will be over 34" - IMO So, wouldn't that be making us go backwards instead of forwards?
Again, this is not logical or reasonable. I really don't believe that even if this was offered, people would be trying for over horses, they just happen sometimes. Excuse me, but it's hard to even defend this statement because lack reason.
"I will say again - this seems SO SIMPLE - I love my AMHA and my AMHR horses !"
Simple to YOU, because you are taking a very literal black and white position on the topic. Most people do not see it that way. I am not saying that most people want an over division, I actually think we are pretty evenly split as far as this thread goes, but I am saying that regardless of their feeling on this, most do not see it so cut and dry, because as with anything, it really is not that simple.
1) What about the breeders over the years that have turned in their papers to AMHA when their horse went over - Would this be fair to them?
They could easily get their papers back. When papers are turned in they do not get shreaded and dissapear. AMHA has the records and they could easily re-instate the papers. And as for geldings, I say give them the breeding stock papers too, so they can keep their papers. It doesnt really make a difference and certainly doesn't hurt the breed, they cant show and they cant breed, but they can keep their papers.
2)1. Where do you stop with the oversize? 36" 38" 40"?
I don't see a necessity for a height limit on breeding stock. Again, they can't show, and the goal is still to PRODUCE under 34". It is reasonable to think that a 36" mare could produce an under 34" foal. It is NOT reasonable to think that a 40" mare is likely to produce an under 34" foal. People do have common sense. If the mare can't produce the under 34" foals people aren't going to keep breeding it.
2. When will an oversize horses cease to be a miniature horse?
Any horse who has breeding stock papers and can produce under 34" foals, would still be considered a miniature horse, regardless of it's height.
3. Once you set the height, what will you do when the pastures are then full of horses 2" or taller than the top height? When will enough be enough. We can't seem to keep over 34" horses from being used now.
If we consider a breeding stock division the goal height of 34" is not being changed. No horse over 34" will be allowed to show. So there is really no push for taller and taller. I don't think a height limit for breeding stock is necessary, because no matter what their height, they either are or are not producing foals under 34" and if they are not, they have no use to the breeder trying to get under 34" foals, and it will stop being bred. There would be no "top" height, because the goal would still be to produce 34" and under.
4. How will we as an association be better prepared to handle it if you raise the height?
No need, look at my answer to question 3.
And on that, I am done with this thread
I think every angle of healthy debate has been hashed out. I can't defend or debate premise without reason and without logic.
