In my opinion MONEY The real reason for the new measuring change

[bingo]

Just in the responses alone I have seen at least 10 that have said gee with this new rule I now have a new AMHA mini. This is a mini who was R only yesterday and over 34 inches.

But the question is, how many of those people will actually put out the money to hardship those "new" AMHA eligible horses???
I'm one that said I have several that now fit, but I never actually said I am going to pay to get those AMHA papers on those horses. What a waste of money that would be for me; we don't even have an AMHA show up here any more, so there'd be no benefit at all in buying those papers for my horses.

I know I have 5 now that will measure in easily however I have no intention of putting them into AMHA. They were not good enough before, they will not acknowledge them or their worth at the true height so that is enough for me to know they don't need to be AMHA registered or reinstated into AMHA

 

[tagalong]

...AMHA is doing a far better job promoting AMHR than any marketing firm ever could.

I said this in another thread - and it seems to apply here as well. In all the enthusaism and glee to leap all over AMHA and cry foul - how does AMHR get a break? I doubt that AMHR "considering" moving the measurement to the top of the withers as it should be will actually happen any time soon - if ever - and there are just as many measuring issues in AMHR as AMHA - with horses moving all over the classes and even jumping from Under to Over.

So I am left puzzled as to why the measuring issue is only such a HORROR for AMHA - when many of the same people/trainers/exhibitors that people like to point fingers at and complain about are in both registries anyway....

BOTH registries should go by the top of the withers measurement - and calling one out on that fact and pointing fingers while patting the other on the head for not having done it makes no sense to me.

 

[rabbitsfizz]

...AMHA is doing a far better job promoting AMHR than any marketing firm ever could.

I said this in another thread - and it seems to apply here as well. In all the enthusaism and glee to leap all over AMHA and cry foul - how does AMHR get a break? I doubt that AMHR "considering" moving the measurement to the top of the withers as it should be will actually happen any time soon - if ever - and there are just as many measuring issues in AMHR as AMHA - with horses moving all over the classes and even jumping from Under to Over.

So I am left puzzled as to why the measuring issue is only such a HORROR for AMHA - when many of the same people/trainers/exhibitors that people like to point fingers at and complain about are in both registries anyway....

BOTH registries should go by the top of the withers measurement - and calling one out on that fact and pointing fingers while patting the other on the head for not having done it makes no sense to me.

Quoted in full for absolute truth!!!!

 

[Buckskin gal]

Very well spoken of the truth.

...AMHA is doing a far better job promoting AMHR than any marketing firm ever could.

I said this in another thread - and it seems to apply here as well. In all the enthusaism and glee to leap all over AMHA and cry foul - how does AMHR get a break? I doubt that AMHR "considering" moving the measurement to the top of the withers as it should be will actually happen any time soon - if ever - and there are just as many measuring issues in AMHR as AMHA - with horses moving all over the classes and even jumping from Under to Over.

So I am left puzzled as to why the measuring issue is only such a HORROR for AMHA - when many of the same people/trainers/exhibitors that people like to point fingers at and complain about are in both registries anyway....

BOTH registries should go by the top of the withers measurement - and calling one out on that fact and pointing fingers while patting the other on the head for not having done it makes no sense to me.

 

[bingo]

Well I don't think anyone is gleeful about anything. The difference to me is that while measuring at the last hairs of the mane is silly-measuring at the bottom of the withers and yet still claiming to be the premier registry for not allowing any horse over 34 inches well that is ludicrous!

 

[susanne]

When it comes to measuring, the two registries are Dumb and Dumber.

Not that either is good, but AMHA is definitely Dumber.

 

[backwoodsnanny]

I think the difference at the moment is that AMHA has changed what has become the accepted way of measuring all AMHA horses and it was done in a way that seemed they were trying to put something over on the membership while the AMHR problem affects those who show but not all members. The point being I believe is that this AMHA change affected far more owners than looking the other way during measuring at shows that AMHR is guilty of. So AMHA is having its turn in the barrel at the moment for far more than just unfair measuring practices which we are told goes on in both registries.

 

[faithfarm]

Everyone has to admit that measuring at the last mane hair was the dumbest thing you ever heard of. And I have sat at a table with one of the old timers who explained why AMHA chose to allow 34" and under and measure at the last mane hair. It was a compromise with those who wanted 36" and under horses to be allowed.

The reasoning as I see it now, is we will be measuring on a bone and not at some arbitrary hair. Whether we measure at the top of the withers and allow 36" horses or at the bottom and keep the registry at 34" really doesn't make a hill of beans. There is not much difference from the last mane hair and the base of the withers on most horses and you can't fake a bone.

I have read all the threads on this subject and have to wonder whether the people doing the most complaining even show AMHA. If you don't show, this really should not matter to you since your AMHA horse will still be legal.

Rick

 

[Mona]

I have read all the threads on this subject and have to wonder whether the people doing the most complaining even show AMHA. If you don't show, this really should not matter to you since your AMHA horse will still be legal.

Rick

Well Rick, I guess I would have to consider myself one of those "people doing the most complaining", and I must say, I am HIGHLY OFFENDED by that statement!!

If you have been around that many years, and have been involved in AMHA that many years, then you should KNOW by now that it matters not whether a person shows their horses, breeds them or just owns them to love! WHERE is it written that only people that SHOW AMHA have the right to complain, whether it be loud or a little! It's statements like this that make people feel that AMHA members are SNOBS and/or elitists! That statement just disgusts me!

So according to your thoughts, anyone that owns AMHA registered horses that measure over 34" that they do not plan to show, it is OK to be dishonest and cheat just because they are not standing in the show ring being measured!!! I just cannot believe you said that!! No wonder there is so much CHEATING going on IN the rings today!!

OH!

 

[Gypsygal]

Unfortunately all of this bickering does not help the breed as a whole. I know I have had buyers come by and they have heard about the problems between the 2 associations and they dont even own a mini yet. When people are selling they are either saying AMHA or AMHR is better depending on the type they are trying to sell. Most of mine are double registered so when selling we dont have an opinion as to which is better. I think as in everything - depending on your experiences and what area you live in will depend on your preferences.

Isn't it wonderful that we all like something different - that is what makes the world go around.

Gypsygal

 

[faithfarm]

I have read all the threads on this subject and have to wonder whether the people doing the most complaining even show AMHA. If you don't show, this really should not matter to you since your AMHA horse will still be legal.

Rick

Well Rick, I guess I would have to consider myself one of those "people doing the most complaining", and I must say, I am HIGHLY OFFENDED by that statement!!

If you have been around that many years, and have been involved in AMHA that many years, then you should KNOW by now that it matters not whether a person shows their horses, breeds them or just owns them to love! WHERE is it written that only people that SHOW AMHA have the right to complain, whether it be loud or a little! It's statements like this that make people feel that AMHA members are SNOBS and/or elitists! That statement just disgusts me!

So according to your thoughts, anyone that owns AMHA registered horses that measure over 34" that they do not plan to show, it is OK to be dishonest and cheat just because they are not standing in the show ring being measured!!! I just cannot believe you said that!! No wonder there is so much CHEATING going on IN the rings today!!

OH!

You have a rigt to be offended, most of what I read on this subject has been offensive to me; most of the complaints I see accuse AMHA of changing this rule for dishonest reasons.

I think you're missing the point, measuring at the base of the withers is basically the same point as the last mane hair but it never moves. My take on this, is this gives a consistant way to measure the horses without changing the standard and does not affect your non-show horses. Would you cut down the heels and leave long toes on your horses that you're not trying to squeeze in a class? Do you measure 3 times and take the smallest measurement? I doubt very seriously that you leave a trail of (mane) hair on your horses when you are measuring them at the house like you see on the show horses. Who cares if they measure + or - 1/4", it won't stop someone from buying a good horse. I didn't write my comment to offend people who don't show, but to offer an explanation of why this change could have some very good results. I have shown my 30" horse against much taller horses in the 28"-30" class, I don't mind giving up 1/2" but 1 1/2" is a little much. I for one am in favor of anything that brings consistency to the measuring.

And yes, I think the next step should be to allow over 34" to be allowed for breeding stock only. That's how it works when you're a breed, maybe they could sneek that one by us too.

Rick

 

[R3]

I'm sorry, but I can not agree that since the 'base of the withers' is a bone, that it is therefore a 'better' place to measure. First off, WHERE is the base of the withers? Which vertebrae are you using as the 'base'? How did you determine which bone was the correct one? How can you be sure that you are using the SAME bone on your horse that the next person is using on their horse? The spine is flexible, does the bone move when the horse raises or lowers its head?

The problems we have with 'measuring' have very little to do with the being able to find the last hair. They have to do with how the horses are being stood up and handled during the measuring. Handlers have been allowed stretch and straddle out the horse, and to push and pull on their heads and necks during the measurment. THIS is what is the problem, and changing WHERE we measure won't fix it.

Maybe the new rule that was passed, to allow a horse's height to be protest after it has been in a class, and if it is on the show-grounds, will help to keep people honest. It might be a mess for awhile, but if people realize that other competitors can protest them, and that they will, there will be less incentive for exhibitors to try to get into the classes where they don't truly belong.