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

[backwoodsnanny]

I have read with interest ALL of the posts regarding the rule change that affects every AMHA owner not only here but also internationally and find it interesting that the reasoning posted for the original proposal was to STOP cheating and perhaps that was the motive that was behind this proposal but I think most of the membership dont buy that reasoning since we had a method for measuring that would have been working if there were no cheating but humans cheat thats just human nature apparently. Sooo rather than cheat which was creating alot of complaining by the general membership and alot of unrest within the registry the rule change was proposed that would allow in these horses with no cheating needed. But more than just the fact that these bigger horses would now make it in think of the $ this whole thing will generate.

First of all these bigger horses now can be used to sire AMHA horses all of whom now can be double registered when before they could only be AMHR horses. Supposedly increasing their value because these offspring now are miraculously able to be double registered and therefore worth more $.

Then there is the HUGE amount of money to be made when all these new horses that yesterday were R only horses become A horses. You dont really believe the registry is going to give AMHA papers to all of these new horses at no cost do you? I have read over and over on these threads that now my 35 inch horse will measure 34 or now my stallion who is 36 is going to be 34. I doubt the registry is going to bellieve a simple statement from the owner regarding this. I think there will be registry trained individuals that will be trained to do this new measurement and that to get these new papers you will have to have the horse measured by one of these individuals and then pay hardship fees to obtain these new oapers on your horse. This is very big. Probably thousands and thousands of dollars or more.

So my take on all of this is that it would have been a huge boost to AMHA coffers IF the membership hadnt become offended at the way in which it was done. Big bucks for the breeders and Bigger bucks for the registry. Its all about MONEY!!!!!

I have also seen the word integrity in many of the threads There is no more integrity in any competitive arena any more. It doesnt matter if you look at horse shows or team sports or any other competition the rules for almost all venues have become a joke. It all goes back to accountability and that is something sadly lacking in all areas of our lives so why would we think that our registries would be any different?

So what to do? I guess each of us needs to decide what kind of association we want and then act on those beliefs. There will always be those who try to cheat no matter what the rules, old rules new rules wont matter but until someone steps up and makes penalties that match the offense and ENFORCE those penalties all other changes are somewhat a moot point.

The issue this time is that this change affects all of us everywhere and this time those who dont show are as affected as those who do and the outcry is louder but unless the outcry is followed up with action this too will go off into the sunset until the membership feels blindsided the next time. One more time MONEY talks and B----it walks.

 

[lvponies]

 

[sfmini]

I sat next to Toni during the vote and that is what she said to me that her reasoning was for submitting the change.

I have put the question to the others on the board asking what we are going to do about the horses who's papers were revoked because of size.

Comments were received from only two of them so far. One thinks we should just reinstate them using the reinstatement fee and process. Another thinks they should be hardshipped. My vote is the reinstatement, so it is 2 to 1 at this point, and that is the procedure that I will argue for. I am guessing that this will be a topic of discussion at the June board meeting in Texas.

 

[Anne ABC]

I posted this on a previous thread but, thought I would add it here as I really would like to hear a answer if anyone knows the procedures that should be taken.

OH! I am still in shock, I believe, that this rule was even discussed at length by AMHA members much less passed. But, all that is another matter at this point.

We do limited shows both AMHA and AMHR with "A" size horses so this rule change does not effect us personally to any degree as none of our horses are boarderline.

However, it does effect our opinion of the registry we have so proudly endorsed and felt pride in being a part of.

We felt AMHA had always strived to be set apart when it came to size. We felt the goal of AMHA breeders was to produce the best quality SMALL (ie:34" and under) miniature horse possible.

Now they want me to try to produce the best quality WHAT SIZE AMHA miniature horse available?

This is all just to crazy for me so I have just been reading all the comments over the past week and wondering where we go from here. Trying to make some sense of it all.

I guess my question is what do we, as concerned members, do now? Do we just sit back and allow "those 60 that are" to take over and do as they please or do we stand up and voice our opinions where they will be heard? And, how would we go about doing that?

These discussions of "how did this happen" and "who managed to sneak this rule by" can go on forever but that is not repairing the great damage that has been done to our entire association.

IT IS AS IF OUR ASSOCIATIONS ENTIRE REASON FOR BEING HAS BEEN DESTROYED AND TAKEN AWAY FROM US! HOW DO WE FIX IT??

 

[Warpony]

I sat next to Toni during the vote and that is what she said to me that her reasoning was for submitting the change.

I have put the question to the others on the board asking what we are going to do about the horses who's papers were revoked because of size.

Comments were received from only two of them so far. One thinks we should just reinstate them using the reinstatement fee and process. Another thinks they should be hardshipped. My vote is the reinstatement, so it is 2 to 1 at this point, and that is the procedure that I will argue for. I am guessing that this will be a topic of discussion at the June board meeting in Texas.

This is really what I have been thinking about a lot these last few days. I think there are going to be a lot of upset people if they are required to hardship them in. Just random things I thought of: if they have to be hardshipped will they have their parents listed as "unknown"? Or will they retain their known pedigree? Also, hardshipping is expensive, it seems GROSSLY out of line to expect people who had their horses properly registered and who followed the rules at the time to pay that amount of money to get papers on their horses because there was a rule change.

Reinstatement seems the much more acceptable way to go though I think having to pay the higher fee (higher than just the cost to go perm) will still bug a lot of people. I mean it is twice the cost of the fee to go perm, if I remember correctly.

Did the one who supported hardshipping have a reason why? I'd be curious as to why they think this would be the better way to go.

 

[Jill]

I just cannot imagine the deep hard feelings towards AMHA a member would have if they turned in papers on an "over" horse who's now "in" and then have to go through the hassle and cost to hardship that horse back in ---- where those who didn't play by the rules are good to go?

 

[Irish Hills Farm]

I think if AMHA makes those people who turned in papers on over horses, pay to hardship them back in, AMHA will have a heck of a lot of people TICKED OFF to no end. Might even cost AMHA members. JUST DUMB BEYOUND BELIEF!!!!

One word might sum it all up...

G R E E D

 

[backwoodsnanny]

In my original post I was NOT referring to those horses that have relinquished their papers I didnt even address that as it would seem those should be reinstated at no huge cost to their owners I was addressing those who have those borderline horses in their paddocks who currently are AMHR only because they couldnt measure in for AMHA. who now will be AMHA eligible and the amount of money that will generate as people apply to get those horses registered AMHA before the registry closes. And if this is allowed to fly of course any rule change that happens to rectify this situation would grandfather those new AMHA horses as that is the only way that would be FAIR to those who have paid to get them in. So no matter what there will be many new taller AMHA horses because the wheels of rule change move so slowly particularly if it affects thousands of dollars.

 

[Katiean]

I have put the question to the others on the board asking what we are going to do about the horses who's papers were revoked because of size.

Comments were received from only two of them so far. One thinks we should just reinstate them using the reinstatement fee and process. Another thinks they should be hardshipped. My vote is the reinstatement, so it is 2 to 1 at this point, and that is the procedure that I will argue for. I am guessing that this will be a topic of discussion at the June board meeting in Texas.

Hey, if AMHA revoked the papers, they should just send them back and the owners should not have to pay. They (the owner) already paid to register the animal and AMHA took the papers away for size. Now that there is more leeway in measuring If the owner has the horse re-measured by a director AMHA should step up to the plate and just give the papers back.

 

[Magic]

That was my thought too, that money was behind this new measuring. That, and to allow those "a little bit over" horses to be "legitimate". OH!

All of my horses that are AMHA registered measure in the old way (and yes I am a longtime AMHA member); those that went over no longer have AMHA papers. I'm not inclined to get back those papers on those that would measure in now-- pay extra when the horse was rejected by the old rules, but now is welcome?? Does anyone else feel that sense of betrayal that I do?

 

[rabbitsfizz]

Trouble is there will still be just as many "little bit over" horses, still be just as much cheating, still be just as many honest people and just as many people keeping horses up to 40" (oh YES!!) and just not mentioning it.

Who goes and measures horses when they go permanent??

Anyone from AMHA??

Anyone ever check??

No, of course not.

So the whole thing is, once again, a money making farce.

So now, by legitimate measuring standards, you now have a registry that takes horses up to ...oh, say 38".

Excuse me, do you not already have one of those???????

 

[HGFarm]

Yes Magic, that is where the feeling of betrayal comes in. I encourage everyone to not run out and drop their memberships please, but feel this can be worked through. I am sure that if the members unite, and work through this in a logical manner, it can be 'fixed'.

I dont think there is not one person who would NOT benefit from allowing a 'slightly larger' Mini into the registry that before would have been discounted, whether it was one who previously lost A papers due to going oversized (personally I think they should be reinstated at the regular fee to bring a horse permanent) or one that is R and or Shetland only and would not qualify as A. Perhaps a thought of cutting the hardship fees IN HALF for say a year or two, to give folks a decent chance at hardshipping in many currently with another registry, etc... would be more fair and still be quite a source of income for the registry.

I dont think there is one person who can say that allowing these horses in to AMHA would not add to the gene pool and do the registry good.

The problem I personally have is the way it happened and the scenario beforehand- the problems at Worlds with oversized horses and the measuring issues,(which are nothing new, but seem to be getting worse or made more public). The blatant sneers in the face of the registry, the officers there, the other members and the rulebook, when these same few folks who are showing these horses do everything but turn them inside out to get them measured in- and NO punishment is issued for plain and simple, out and out 'cheating', disregard for the rules, other exhibitors AND for the show stewards and all involved.

They are out for one thing- a title or placing, at any cost. And yes, it boils down to THEIR money, or their clients money. I find it difficult to believe that the conversation prior to the vote was directed along the path of how much good this would do for the breed as a whole, and I may be wrong, it could have been, but the thought process silently going on was how much good it would do for them and the illegally registered horses that are showing under papers that should have been canceled, as now they can still show without worry of being protested, etc...

However, I see nothing being put in place to govern or punish folks in the future, who will stretch horses, stand them spraddle legged and again, jump through hoops to continue to show now the ones that are STILL going to have a hard time measuring in under new standards. There is no rule or guideline that says 'STOP!'.

This is where I find the integrity issue, or accountability, as to me they go hand in hand, in regards to enforcing ANY rules that are in place.........

I dont think the membership is as unhappy about WHERE they are being measured (though it does still seem simpler had the AMHA just changed it's size to 35.5 or something) as it is the manner in which this whole thing was 'pulled off' and the lack of communication beforehand.

Ok, off my soapbox for now, but let's please be sensible in our analysis of this entire situation, not cut off our own noses either, and work together as a membership and team, to offer viable and valid solutions to this whole thing.

 

[Minimor]

Does anyone really think that many honest owners--the ones who turned in papers when their horses went over 34" by the old measurement method--are going to come running to pay hardship fees to reregister those horses now that they measure in again with this new method??? Especially when they look over at all the dishonest people who just kept their oversize horses & brought them permanent at 34"--and now those people have legal horses at last, for no additional charge?

I would think that most will be keeping their money & leaving their "new" under 34" horses without AMHA papers, and be wishing they had done like so many others & just kept the papers the first time around.

Bottom line--IMO it would be a bad thing for the AMHA directors to go with the hardshipping requirement.

 

[backwoodsnanny]

Magic no I don t think those owners who legitimately turned in their paperwork are going to sit by with no reponse when others still have papers on oversize minis at least I hope they wouldnt just sit idlely by. But I wasnt even referring to those who had handed in their paperwork I was talking about those minis out there who have never been AMHA minis who now qualify and the money that will be made from them. And I do think that is a signifigant number.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.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Wow now I can see why people don't turn in horses papers if they go over

. But boy what a waste of honesty, good work, and also money if these honest people turned in the horses papers and don't get a chance to get the papers back, for FREE, if they are under now. I can understand having to pay like an inspection fee, but they should be alowed to get those papers back with no extra $$$.

You are right, AMHA will be getting quite a bit of $$$ if this new rule does go thru, good for them

 

[susanne]

I think...

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

 

[Scoopiedoo]

Susanne,

You took the words right from my fingertips, LOL!

Jodi

 

[Leeana]

I stated my opinion on my topic and that is all im saying

. I think we all know in the back of our minds what the real motive was for some of the people, well, atleast i do

.

susanne Posted Today, 07:09 PM
I think...

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

The past two weeks have been a joke

 

[Minimor]

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.

 

[Jill]

I think...

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