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

[HGFarm]

Bumping up again... interesting to see no replies or info on that...

Ditto with R3- open discussion is always educational and is good for everyone to see all sides. I too, am not against changing an opinion if I feel that the change is for the good.

I have not heard a thing about what happens to the horses owned by folks that had their papers given up because they did not measure in at 34 or under- some perhaps by a fraction of an inch. I like to see a change be fair to ALL as much as possible, not just a few.

In my opinion, this was not thought through very well before being voted on, and I find it hard to believe, that even with only 100 people or so at the meeting voting, that some of these questions did not come up by anyone at all? Pun intended when I say the cart truly was put before the horse on this one... the bugs should have been worked out first.

 

[LisaF.]

Mary Lou.....that is so sad.....AMHA needs to REMEMBER they do have HONEST breeders out there.

 

[HGFarm]

I completely understand Mary Lou- it's a sad deal. Also, you are being 'punished' by having to pay AGAIN for papers the horse already had at one time? I DO NOT agree with that AT ALL!!! But the folks who kept their mouths shut and didnt cancel papers on their oversized horses are whistling dixie about now...

THEY wont have to pay out of pocket AGAIN for theirs. This just makes me grind my teeth to think of how many folks out there would have to go this route to get their A papers back.

Would I go through the expense again? No I would not, simply due to the lack of principles I see expressed by that as the option. I am sure that if everyone who had given up papers on an oversized horse paid a second time to get those papers back again, AMHA would be sitting on a gold mine. It seems deceptive and unreasonable to even ASK if people would want to do that. I sure wouldn't.

 

[Reble]

Laurie, just so you know.. I am one that HONESTLY turned in a 5 year old mare's AMHA papers last summer because she is 36".. I thought it was the right thing to do as I am truly a supporter of AMHA and the founding rule that horses are to be 34" and under at last hair on mane.. I could of kept this mare in my pasture (without turning in the AMHA papers) and just let her have AMHA registered foals.. But I did not…

on January, 1st, 2009 - the 36" AMHA OVERSIZED mare will measure at 34" at the BASE OF THE WITHERS.. which in turn, allows my OVERSIZE AMHA mare (that I turned the papers in last year) to become AMHA Miniature Horse AGAIN!!

No one to this date has answers if I have to PAY to get her back in (if I want to), and what I have to do to get her back in.. THEY DO NOT KNOW!!! Until the June Meeting.. no-one knows (that is what I am told by AMHA Director that I called)…

this SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN BEFORE the new measurement rule passed.. am I right??

Oh I have measured mine and there is only a different of 1/2 " from the last mane and end of withers?

Are you sure that you can get 2" difference from the base of the withers?

Just shocked.

Have to ask, how many more people have measured at the base of the withers and are 2" difference? We will for sure have a problem with this.

my tallest is 32.25" so now he will be 30.25"

my 28" will be 26"

 

[LisaF.]

In my oppinion I don't want to be off 1/2" when I turn in measurements to the AMHA or the AMHR.

Just think about over the last 30 years how many HONEST breeders turned in their horse papers. I just get angry thinking about it.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Oh I have measured mine and there is only a different of 1/2 " from the last mane and end of withers?

Are you sure that you can get 2" difference from the base of the withers?

Just shocked.

Have to ask, how many more people have measured at the base of the withers and are 2" difference? We will for sure have a problem with this.

my tallest is 32.25" so now he will be 30.25"

my 28" will be 26"

I have been able to get to an 1" on one horse we measured, maybe 1 1/4" if it was trimmed.

Mary Lou this is for you doing the right thing

Lets hope AMHA does the right thing also. I think before making any rash decisions on AMHAs part they need to hear the voice of the people, and when I mean people I mean their members. Like an open debate. Perhaps here on the forum, live chat room during the June meeting.

 

[bingo]

Oh I have measured mine and there is only a different of 1/2 " from the last mane and end of withers?

Are you sure that you can get 2" difference from the base of the withers?

Just shocked.

Have to ask, how many more people have measured at the base of the withers and are 2" difference? We will for sure have a problem with this.

my tallest is 32.25" so now he will be 30.25"

my 28" will be 26"

It depends on the build of the horse. My smallest horses have little difference I have horses who have over 1+ inch difference.

If your horse is built with actual prominent withers you will have a much larger difference in height.

 

[Reble]

Oh I have measured mine and there is only a different of 1/2 " from the last mane and end of withers?

Are you sure that you can get 2" difference from the base of the withers?

Just shocked.

Have to ask, how many more people have measured at the base of the withers and are 2" difference? We will for sure have a problem with this.

my tallest is 32.25" so now he will be 30.25"

my 28" will be 26"

It depends on the build of the horse. My smallest horses have little difference I have horses who have over 1+ inch difference.

If your horse is built with actual prominent withers you will have a much larger difference in height.

thanks Bingo for your reply.

please explain again, if the mane hair is not prominent, why would the end of the withers make it so much more taller? we are not measureing against the top of the withers? the end of the withers should be along the same as the end of the mane NO? Just trying to understand why the horses back would not be level?

End of the withers is level along the mane yes?

Sorry still do not see the 2" difference coming in? unless the horse has a funny back?

Oh well, hope this does not come in, if people are not sure where to measure? and we have 2" difference...

Good topic, but still looks like a show problem.

 

[Kim]

please explain again, if the mane hair is not prominent, why would the end of the withers make it so much more taller? we are not measureing against the top of the withers? the end of the withers should be along the same as the end of the mane NO? Just trying to understand why the horses back would not be level?

End of the withers is level along the mane yes?

Sorry still do not see the 2" difference coming in? unless the horse has a funny back?

Oh well, hope this does not come in, if people are not sure where to measure? and we have 2" difference...

Good topic, but still looks like a show problem.

While a lot of minis do not have prominent withers like you would see in a big horse, many do. On quite a few of those horses, their manes do not continue down to the bottom of their withers, rather they stop nearer to the top, hence the larger difference in measurement on some horses. The larger the horse and the more prominent wither the horse has (i.e. closer to 'large horse conformation'), the more difference there will be between the two measurements, assuming of course that the mane stops before the base of the wither, which is often the case.

 

[Reble]

please explain again, if the mane hair is not prominent, why would the end of the withers make it so much more taller? we are not measureing against the top of the withers? the end of the withers should be along the same as the end of the mane NO? Just trying to understand why the horses back would not be level?

End of the withers is level along the mane yes?

Sorry still do not see the 2" difference coming in? unless the horse has a funny back?

Oh well, hope this does not come in, if people are not sure where to measure? and we have 2" difference...

Good topic, but still looks like a show problem.

While a lot of minis do not have prominent withers like you would see in a big horse, many do. On quite a few of those horses, their manes do not continue down to the bottom of their withers, rather they stop nearer to the top, hence the larger difference in measurement on some horses. The larger the horse and the more prominent wither the horse has (i.e. closer to 'large horse conformation'), the more difference there will be between the two measurements, assuming of course that the mane stops before the base of the wither, which is often the case.

thanks Kim, I guess my horses are different.

I will have to check a third time?

 

[Kim]

thanks Kim, I guess my horses are different.

I will have to check a third time?

Some of mine have very similar measurements, some don't - it just depends on the combination of how the horse is built and where his mane hair ends!

 

[Reble]

In my oppinion I don't want to be off 1/2" when I turn in measurements to the AMHA or the AMHR.

Just think about over the last 30 years how many HONEST breeders turned in their horse papers. I just get angry thinking about it.

LisaF you miss read my post, if you are talking about the 1/2" ? my tallest is only 32.25 " so nothing will be getting turned in here.

If you are measuring with base of withers that makes my horse smaller not taller?

 

[LisaF.]

Rebel...I think you are not understanding what I am saying. You have said it is for the show people.

In my oppinion it is not only for the show people....I don't show...but, what if someone wanted to buy one of my miniatures to put in the show ring?...I want to tell that person the correct height of my miniatures. That is only one problem.

As, Mary Lou stated she turned in her papers last year on a miniature because it out grew the size of 34". Think of how many honest breeders has done that?

You can't just think about the show people you have to think about everyone that is a member of the AMHA.

Or at least I do. I consider my horses and I consider the people that buy my horses. I also consider the people that show.

I am not just thinking of myself. I am thinking about all the members of AMHA.

 

[bingo]

. On quite a few of those horses, their manes do not continue down to the bottom of their withers, rather they stop nearer to the top, hence the larger difference in measurement on some horses. The larger the horse and the more prominent wither the horse has (i.e. closer to 'large horse conformation'), the more difference there will be between the two measurements, assuming of course that the mane stops before the base of the wither, which is often the case.

Thanks Kim that is exactly it. The more large horse like the conformation the more it lends to taller horses becoming quite smaller.

I am not understanding why some keep saying this only effects show people. Are they the only ones who ever measure horses?

 

[HGFarm]

This is for the entire membership of AMHA, not just the 'show people'. Think of how many horses were taken out of the gene pool for even just breeding by turning in papers. They used to have a 'foundation oversize' part of the registry? What was wrong with that? They could still be used for breeding, but not shown.

 

[Margo_C-T]

Seems to me that this ARBITRARY change to yet ANOTHER 'oddball' place to measure height is a direct violation of the implied contract between an official breed registry(in this case, AMHA) and its members! Looks a LOT like a cause for legal action to me.....

I've NEVER believed that measuring height at the LHOTM was a particularly good idea--that said---it HAS BEEN the 'standard' since the AMHA's inception, understood and widely accepted within BOTH the recognized miniature horse registries, actually-and, until a proper procedure can be worked out to change to a TOTW measurement (AS IS PRACTICED BY THE ENTIRE BALANCE OF THE EQUINE WORLD, with good reason--and which I am absolutely sure COULD be acceptably accomplished, with due and careful planning and consideration!!)--it only makes sense for it to be RETAINED!

I think we ALL can understand that a change to the BOTW measurement location:

-will NOT 'eliminate' cheating on measuring! NOTHING I can think of will ensure the total elimination of cheating, but I am CERTAIN that strict and fair enforcement of existing rules, such as about the horse's stance/head position--and the enactment of a few new rules, such as to automatically disqualify a horse from being measured if/when it 'shrinks' from a measurement device---would go a LONG way towards eliminating those who would cheat!! It is PAST TIME for the organization to do just that!!

-will, in MANY (not all, but MANY) cases, result in horses that were formerly clearly over height being 'suddenly legal'. This has the REAL potential to create all SORTS of problems, among those:

-- to bring the very reputation of the AMHA into question, IMO---for changing the rules in what appears a hasty manner, without forethought OR foresight, AND, for appearing to be trying to make 'illegal' horse legal, WHILE PROCLAIMING THAT NOTHING HAS CHANGED--just for starters.

- has the VERY REAL potential to cost the AMHA money it says it doesn't have--and/or, to cost members in ways that shouldn't exist--for instance:

-- what would be the cost of 'correcting' many horses' registration papers, to reflect their 'new' height?

-- how are honest members who've previously surrendered the papers on horses that they measured as overheight, but which would truly 'measure in' under the BOTW scenario, to be treated? Are they to be charged a FEE for their honesty, while those who kept oversized (breeding )horses at home, 'under the radar' -( yes, I am WELL aware that is probably a widespread practice...and I do NOT condone it), go merrily on their dishonest way? That would be SHAMEFUL on the part of an organization, would it not??

I wrote an email letter to my own and all other Directors, as well as all Officers, of AMHA, early on after this move became public, expressing these and additional concerns. A good percentage, though far from all, responded--most were very 'non-committal'; a few openly expressed concern about this turn of events, and an even smaller number indicated support. Now that they have had time to reflect, AND to receive members' concerns, I can only URGE that the only reasonable avenue of action for the AMHA BOD now is to set the 'decision' aside. After all, as R3(Julie) so clearly pointed out, they have done so recently, as regards the protest rule and fee...

I should add that I have 'guesstimated' the precise location of the elusive 'base of the withers', to measure all of my horses in both the original and the 'new and improved'(??) way, and the range of difference is from 1/4" to over 1", depending on the horse, its wither configuration, and where its mane growth ends.

Margo