Let's Discuss "Base Of The Withers" measuring....

[debbiesshelties]

Hello,

Could someone tell me if miniature horses have always been measured at the last hair of the mane?

Thank you,

Debbie

 

[Mona]

Hello,

Could someone tell me if miniature horses have always been measured at the last hair of the mane?

Thank you,

Debbie

To the best of my knowledge (although I could be wrong), I do believe so.

We ought to take a long hard look, a deep breath, and realize that there is no real perfect way to measure. That being said, why not a "margin of error" that way we eliminate the enticement to protest just to cause problems.

Now THERE is another idea Gary!!

I know many would be against it, but I for one do like it, for sure!

 

[McBunz]

I could maybe go along with that depending on what the "margin of error" is...

 

[R3]

I understand the idea of the 'margin of error', and IF people were needing it for horses that didn't exceed the maximum, then it would be OK. But, I think in practice, all it would do is 'add' that much more to the maximum height of the horses. Just as people now 'push' the upper limits of the height (the same ones that are needing that 'margin of error'), these same people will just keep on pushing, but now it will be up to the 'top' of the 'margin of error', and we will be right back where we are now. Right now, the max is 34", and we have problems with people that want to be breeding horses that mature right at the 34" mark. If we allowed 1/4 inch for 'margin of error', I am afraid that then people would be breeding for horses 34 1/4" tall, instead because it was now OK to be 34 1/4", rather than 34".

And, when would you allow the 'margin of error'? Would it only for those horses in danger of being 'oversize' (ie over 34"), or would you also allow it for the different height divisions at a show? I don't think I'd like it at all for the height divisions. If I had a truly under 28" horse, I wouldn't want a 28 1/4" horse (because it was given a 'margin of error') to be showing in the same class I am.

Edited for poor typing skills.

 

[Mona]

Yes, good points Julie...definately something to think about.

I understand the idea of the 'margin of error', and IF people were needing it for horses that didn't exceed the maximum, then it would be OK. But, I think in practice, all it would do is 'add' that much more to the maximum height of the horses. Just as people now 'push' the upper limits of the height (the same ones that are needing that 'margin of error'), these same people will just keep on pushing, but now it will be up to the 'top' of the 'margin of error', and we will be right back where we are now. Right now, the max is 34", and we have problems with people that want to be breeding horses that mature right at the 34" mark. If we allowed 1/4 inch for 'margin of error', I am afraid that then people would be breeding for horses 34 1/4" tall, instead because it was no OK to be 34 1/4", rather than 34".

And, when would you allow the 'margin of error'? Would it only for those horses in danger of being 'oversize' (ie over 34"), or would you also allow it for the different height divisions at a show? I don't think I'd like i at allt for the height divisions. If I had a truly under 28" horse, I wouldn't want a 28 1/4" horse (because it was given a 'margin of error') to be showing in the same class I am.

 

[R3]

Mary-Lou, Yes, that is the feeling I got from one couple that I spoke with, but it could be that I just interpreted it wrong. They said something along the lines of, "of the two, we liked the BOTW better." But I think statement should also be combined with the fact that a lot of people wanted 'CHANGE' when it came to measuring. There was a lot of measuring controversy that reached a peak at the World show. So, maybe the viewed the TOTW and BOTW as their only choices for 'change', and their vote for BOTW wasn't so much a vote of confusion as it was a vote for 'change', and they liked BOTW better.

The BOTW was presented as a 'better' way to measure, it was 'bone' and wouldn't move, and as presented it didn't come with any 'baggage' like changing to the TOTW would have (as people are concerned that if we go to the TOTW that horses will go 'over' and lose papers). No mention was made, that I can remember, about a differnce in height from the BOTW, so I am sure many didn't need to hear any more than the BOTW would make measuring 'better'.

I don't think that 'confusion' was THE reason for the BOTW passing. As I was trying to explain, it was a combination of all the things going on, TOTW, BOTW, measuring controvery, and the 'legal' reason papers aren't currently being pulled on oversize horses. None of those issues by themselves would have been enough, but I think all of them combined together may have been the reason we got the result that it did.

 

[R3]

I guess I’ll have to say it again. I DID NOT SAY, “…SO MANY may have been confused”, and I did not say that was the reason that the BOTW passed. I based MY OPINION on the comments of ONE couple who said something like, “we preferred the BOTW to the TOTW”. I gave two possible interpretations of this… one was confusion, the other that they wanted ‘change’ and one of those choices would have been a change… But, again, I don’t think it was any ‘one’ thing, but a combination of things that caused the proposal to pass.

Would additional information have made a difference? I don’t know, but the vote was what it was, and now we have to deal with the consequences. We have to raise reasons that are defendable, supportable, and legitimate if we want to get the outcome we desire.

We keep demanding a response, and I agree, what we have heard is dismal. But, we have been told that NO, there aren’t answers. That is an answer, not what we wanted to hear, and not in the detail we want. But, I honestly do not think that it is likely that we will hear anything more until the June meeting.

There has been a lot of talk about how the ‘rules’ were not followed in the passing of this By-Law, but I don’t know exactly which rules you are saying weren’t followed. We have to be specific. This rule was not treated any differently than any of the other rules that were voted on. It went through the committees, I know that because I was on the committee.

There has been a lot of talk about ‘impact statements’. I don’t know that we can use that as a legitimate reason to have the BOTW rule rescinded, unless we also plan to have ALL the rules that have been passed for the past several years rescinded too. Also, I don’t know if it is the same on a corporate/legal level, but at work, through our grievance processes, we have to object to something in a timely manner. You can’t wait too long, or you lose the right to complain. It is chalked up as ‘past practice’. Even though the complaints were started shortly after the February meeting, the ‘practice’ was not new in 2008, it was already the way things were ‘done’, so it may be too late to cry ‘foul’ now.

Plus, if you look online, the new proposed rules are listed under the heading of ‘impact statements’, even though all that is listed there is the text of the proposed changes. There is no additional information. So, I imagine that the same thing was done last year, and probably for many years before that. If so, there were ‘impact statements’, even if they are not what you or I may consider adequate.

I am not saying this to indicate we should give up, or we don’t stand a chance, but we may need to broaden our focus and find other issues that are legitimate reasons that THIS rule should not be implemented. We need to find things that are unique to this rule, things that don’t affect all the other rules that have been passed (or not) for the past several years.

What we do know is that the Board stopped implementation of a rule last year because they said it was unenforceable, and that it could lead to lawsuits if we tried to enforce it. Are there aspects of this rule that could cause the same problems? If we can find these, then we need to emphasize them.

 

[horses mouth]

I understand the idea of the 'margin of error', and IF people were needing it for horses that didn't exceed the maximum, then it would be OK. But, I think in practice, all it would do is 'add' that much more to the maximum height of the horses. Just as people now 'push' the upper limits of the height (the same ones that are needing that 'margin of error'), these same people will just keep on pushing, but now it will be up to the 'top' of the 'margin of error', and we will be right back where we are now. Right now, the max is 34", and we have problems with people that want to be breeding horses that mature right at the 34" mark. If we allowed 1/4 inch for 'margin of error', I am afraid that then people would be breeding for horses 34 1/4" tall, instead because it was now OK to be 34 1/4", rather than 34".

And, when would you allow the 'margin of error'? Would it only for those horses in danger of being 'oversize' (ie over 34"), or would you also allow it for the different height divisions at a show? I don't think I'd like it at all for the height divisions. If I had a truly under 28" horse, I wouldn't want a 28 1/4" horse (because it was given a 'margin of error') to be showing in the same class I am.

Edited for poor typing skills.

Julie

I was speaking of a margin of error for the protest rule so that it can't be used as a weapon.................I am not sure I understand this remark in bold from the quote, "and we have problems with people that want to be breeding horses that mature right at the 34" mark".

Why would anyone have a problem with someone breeding a "legal" sized horse in our industry unless they have a bias or agenda?

 

[McBunz]

I am sure she means that breeding to the max size you are sure to have a lot of horses grow over size.

I am breeding to get around the 32 inch mark.. I still get a lot of over sized horses.. thus the AMHR.

Mind you I do register the small ones AMHR as well..

 

[R3]

There is nothing 'wrong' with a 34" horse; it is a miniature horse by all definitions. Many people like the taller horses; that is their preference. But, the premise of AMHA (and AMHR) is supposed to be to try to breed for the smallest, perfect horse, not the most perfect horse that will stay as close to legal size as possible at maturity. It is my opinion that if people were indeed breeding their horses to try to reduce the size of the breed, while improving the quality, we wouldn't have as much problem as we are now with the height issues (for horses at the 34" mark).

My comments are just as valid, even if the 'margin of error' is designed to reduce 'harassment' protests. If a person can afford to file a protest, just as harassment, then the harassment is more important to them than the money, and a ‘margin of error’ would do nothing to dissuade them.

A ‘margin of error’ still allows a horse to be taller, by that "margin of error". I don't think we need to implement anything within the organization to encourage taller horses.

Maybe there is something about your idea that I am not ‘getting’? Could you give more details on how you envision it being used, and give some sample wording of a rule proposal? There may be merit in your idea, but right now, all I can see is a downside.

If you really feel this ‘margin of error’ is worth discussing in depth, you can always start a new topic and then you will get a lot more feedback on it.

 

[R3]

I just found this tid-bit on another topic, but since the subject matter is the BOTW, I thought I'd copy their quote and my reply over here too.

To the person that over analized what the base of the withers (which vertebre)is, if you don't know where the base of the withers is, you need to look at the anotomy of a horse and learn the points of the horse. If you are learned enough to go to all the trouble of your over explination of the vertebre, you should at least know the points of a horse. I felt that was a real Childish response. Do you like talking down to people?

My reply...

I’m not sure exactly how a discussion of the Base of the Withers (BOTW) got into this topic, but I would like to explain my comments (posted in a totally different topic). And, just for reference, I have known horse conformation for 40+ years, but I am not too proud to say that I have never, until this measuring proposal came up, been asked to define an EXACT spot that is the Base of the Withers. For me, the BOTW was always defined as the area where the withers transition into the back. So, I can not in all honesty say I know an EXACT, single defining point that is now going to be known as the BOTW.
I was not ‘talking’ down to people. I am trying to have a logical discussion, on the whole issue of the accuracy and dependability of using the BOTW as a measuring point. I was pointing out that the EXPERTS, not myself, do not agree on the EXACT anatomical description of the withers. The reason that I emphasize EXACT is because if we are going to measure, we have to measure at EXACTLY the same place on each horse.

The discussion at the AMHA Meeting said the BOTW was a better place to measure because it was ‘bone’. So, that opened the door for discussion of bones. I’m not the one who started the vertebrae dialogue, the people promoting the BOTW are the ones who did that. I just followed the direction they started, and am asking for more specifics…which bone did THEY mean? If it’s a bone, then they should be able to define which one.

There is only ONE Last Hair of the Mane (LHOTM). It is a single point. We don’t measure a ½ inch either side of the hair and say, that’s close enough. There is only one highest point of the withers, mostly referred to as the Top of the Withers (TOTW) in these topics. The highest point is the highest point. It is a single point. It isn’t a place ½ inch either side of that single point. From my knowledge, the BOTW is a general area where the withers transition to the back. It is NOT a single point. Until we can define a ‘single’ point that can be EXACTLY located on every horse, then the ‘base of the withers’ is not a valid measuring point.

If veterinarians don’t agree where the withers end, then how can I say I know? But, if someone can tell me the EXACT location, the single point that is the specific Base of the Withers, not just the general area, then I am willing to learn.

 

[HGFarm]

I dont care where they decide to measure- I have other concerns:

That is the integrity and ethics of the registry and standing by the rules in exhistance, no matter what they are. Measuring problems are not new, there have been issues since the beginning, however I have not seen efforts to ensure that it is brought under control and efforts made to follow the rules, so how is changing the rule going to change a thing?

If folks figure out a way to cheat under the current rules, and still enter the show ring, they will figure out something under the new rule as well, and continue doing what they are doing.

Yes, I feel the rule change for some is strictly self serving on the behalf of a few, who are finding another way to avoid following the current rules.

I feel there should be some consistancy between registries and measuring-as a Miniature is a Miniature, whether it's A, R or whatever.. and consistancy with the horse world in general.

Whatever the rules, they need to be enforced and I don't see those efforts being made... rather, a rule change to avoid the current problems that have been allowed to happen for YEARS.

 

[Katiean]

I really don't care where the horse is measured. It could be the length of the cannon bone for all I care. Just pick a spot and stick with it. I think all bickering about how the miniature horses are measured is foolish. If you don't like the new rule then try to appeal it. However, personally, I am so tired of people trying to say what if this or what if that and just all out gripeing about it. If this rule is the way they want to measure. Them lets all accept it.

 

[McBunz]

When something is dead wrong.. we are suppose to accept it..Have you found this magic spot to measure..? Nobody that I know of has found it.. And who is the THEY??? The AMHA belongs to all of its members, not

just the few running it at this time..

 

[maryann]

It may be the perfect place to measure and it may be the most absolute wrong place

to measure.I am really not against measuring at the base of the withers or anywhere else. But Because there are so may questions and very few answers as to what happens to the horses that measured out before that will measure in now. The only answers I have heard about the cost or getting papers reinstated or to hardship in a horse that had measured out was that they will work on those answers later. Also there is much discussion as to where this spot actually is and how those who measure are going to be uniformly trained to find that spot. The Registry really needs to do much

more research before implementing this rule or any other rule that affects the entire

membership and every horse in this registry. The answers to these and other questions need to be figured out before the rule is made permanent, not Later.

It does not mean that I am against this rule. I am just very disappointed and shocked that they did not follow up with more research. MaryAnn

 

[R3]

HGFarms, I totally agree. Measuring at the TOTW, the BOTW, or the LHOTM makes NO DIFFERENCE if people want to cheat.

When I proposed the TOTW measurement, I even prefaced my remarks with the fact that it would not 'help' the measuring controversy, because the reason we have problems is NOT with the location we choose to measure from, but the fact that handlers are being allowed to stretch their horse's feet out (front to back) and spraddle their feet out (side to side), as well as having their heads pulled up.

I said the same thing about the BOTW proposal not being a 'fix' for the measuring problems when it was brought up for a vote too.

Katien, I agree. We don't need to just 'gripe' about something. We need to 'do' something. And, that is what this topic is supposed to be about. It is an opportunity for people who want to 'do' something to share ideas about what we can do, and to disucuss reasons that can be used as valid arguments to convince the AMHA Board to stop the implementation of the rule, before it goes into effect and creates problems for the registry that were not addressed at the time the rule was voted on.

 

[horses mouth]

There is nothing 'wrong' with a 34" horse; it is a miniature horse by all definitions. Many people like the taller horses; that is their preference. But, the premise of AMHA (and AMHR) is supposed to be to try to breed for the smallest, perfect horse, not the most perfect horse that will stay as close to legal size as possible at maturity. It is my opinion that if people were indeed breeding their horses to try to reduce the size of the breed, while improving the quality, we wouldn't have as much problem as we are now with the height issues (for horses at the 34" mark).

Julie

Are you sure your interpretation of "premise" is based in fact? AMHA's articles of incorporation state, "Aid and encourage the breeding, exhibiting, use and perpetuation of Miniature Horses ; promote and coordinate miniature horse show activities; promote and encourage exhibting of miniature horses in open classes; coordinate and cooperate with the US Equestrian Federation in providing qualified judges for miniature horse shows; and in devising and adopting miniature horse show rules, regulations and standards.

The bolded line in your statement, your "premise" only could have roots in The Standard of Perfection; .....preference in judging should be given the smaller horse, other characteristics being approximately equal. Your interpretation is not my interpretation. Let's agree that we are both welcome to our individual opinions and remember that It is all of our members CHOICE to breed for whatever they feel is in their opinion a "miniature horse".

My comments are just as valid, even if the 'margin of error' is designed to reduce 'harassment' protests. If a person can afford to file a protest, just as harassment, then the harassment is more important to them than the money, and a ‘margin of error’ would do nothing to dissuade them.

I feel that my replying to your statements in a way that might allow other people here on this forum to see that there are other opinions and interpretations makes you feel like I am challenging your beliefs. It is not my intention to offend. Therefore I think it is in my best interest to state my feelings and move on.

A ‘margin of error’ still allows a horse to be taller, by that "margin of error". I don't think we need to implement anything within the organization to encourage taller horses.

As I said you are welcome to your opinion. Here's mine; We opened this can of worms. So far all we have done is cause dissention. Dissention in not a luxury for our ever shrinking association. As I said before, no matter what the rule for measuring, we all get the same "chance". We should be fixing the foundation (like the word Permanent on the mature papers) before we think about implementing any rule changes. I was inlvolved in the frey at last years World show (no not protested). As a memebr of Show Rules I was consulted over and over again by many members. The protests did not all concern 34" horses. And I know for a fact that most of them were done as retaliations. It would better suit our articles of incorporation (which is our reason for being) to handle the protest in a different manner rather than the original measurements.

Maybe there is something about your idea that I am not ‘getting’? Could you give more details on how you envision it being used, and give some sample wording of a rule proposal? There may be merit in your idea, but right now, all I can see is a downside.

If you really feel this ‘margin of error’ is worth discussing in depth, you can always start a new topic and then you will get a lot more feedback on it.

Julie

You have some great ideas, much passion and emotion, for the animals we all love so well.

As I invited before; If you do not understand my words here than take the time to call me. This exchange on this public forum is beginning to look like a personal beef (not that I don't like beef). I will NOT continue it here.

Respectfully

Gary Barnes

 

[R3]

Gary, I am truly sorry if you feel I am arguing with you in any way, or that this is 'personal'. That was never my intention, and I haven't taken any of it 'personally'. You posted an idea, I commented on it. You specifically asked me about my comments and I replied. I figured it was rude not to answer when someone asks me a direct question. Since you have directly 'spoken' to me again, I assume that you would want me to respond to you again.

My 'premise' was based on the AMHA and the AMHR Standards of Perfection, so I consider it fact. But, maybe it is only 'my' interpretation. I will just quote them, with parts highlighted, then people can make their own interpretations.

AMHA Standard of Perfection…

General Impression: A small, sound, well-balanced horse, possessing the correct conformation characteristics required of most breeds, Refinement and femininity in the mare. Boldness and masculinity in the stallion - the general impression should be one of symmetry, strength, agility and alertness. Since the breed objective is the smallest possible perfect horse, preference in judging shall be given the smaller horse, other characteristics being approximately equal.

AMHR Standard of Perfection…

B. Size: The American Miniature Horse must measure not more than 34 inches at the base of the last hair on

the mane for Under Division , and not more than 38 inches for Over Division. Since the breed objective is the smallest possible perfect horse preference in judging shall be given to the smallest, all other factors being equal. In no case shall a smaller horse be placed over a larger horse with better conformation.

I guess my choice of words in the 'valid' issue gave you the wrong impression. I didn't mean my 'beliefs' were valid and that you had implied they weren't, I just meant I had the same concerns about your idea, whether it was for 'all' measurements, or just for 'protest' measurements.

Please don't feel that I am trying to create dissention or intending my comments as 'personal' in nature. I like to discuss ideas. I am reasonable, and I am willing to change my views after hearing all sides of an issue. I have never considered a lively discussion with opposing views as a bad thing, so if I caused any hard feelings, I am sorry.

Julie

 

[LisaF.]

Mary Lou..thank you for posting the questions that was sent to the AMHA President and directors.

I am SHOCKED that you did not get a response from ANYONE...very SAD.

I can NOT see any vote passed for any reason without more research than apparently AMHA has done with the new measuring rule.

Has anyone heard if the questions in Mary Lou's Post will be answered?...Either by e-mail or at the June Meeting?

 

[LisaF.]

I am going to bump this up. I am hoping to find out why and if we are going to hear something from the President of AMHA or any of the directors.

Mary Lou has posted EXCELLENT QUESTIONS that I think needs to be addressed.