I think it is a bad thing, for several reasons:
1. AMHA (and AMHR) already measure in an 'odd' place. The Last Hair Of The Mane (LHOTM) is totally out of synch with the rest of the equine world, so we are already looked at like we are nuts by the rest of the 'horse' world. The Base of the Withers (BOTW) will make us look even worse.
2. The 'standard' for measuring equines is the highest point of the withers, or the Top of the Withers (TOTW). It is where miniatures are already being measured Internationally. There is already a 'problem' with the International sale of our horses, as our AMHA horses would often not be registerable in the country to which they were exported, as they did not measure 34" or less at the TOTW. So, it creates an issue for overseas sales. Changing the measuring point to the BOTW makes the situation even worse, as there will be an even greater difference between the measurements taken at the BOTW and the TOTW, as opposed to the LHOTM and the TOTW.
3. The Base of the Withers as location to measure is truly ludicrous, in my opinion. Again, I feel this for many reasons.
... A. It is not a 'known' location within the horse world. I have been around the 'big' horse world for over 40 years, and I had never even heard of the term, at least as it might relate to a measurement point. (I knew about withers of course, just not a conformation spot referred to as the 'BOTW".)
...B. If I didn't (and still don't) know where the BOTW is supposed to be located for measurement purposes, how is the general membeship supposed to know where this point is located?
...C. After researching on the internet, I found the withers described in terms of which thorasic (spine) vertebrae made them up. There was no consensus of which bones made up the withers. It varied from 2nd to 8th, 5th to 9th, 2nd to 6th, and 3rd to 10th. So, just based on that, which 'bone' do we use to measure from, the 6th, 8th, 9th, or 10th?
...D. So, if we can even agree on which vertebrae it is, HOW do we find the right one? How do we 'count' vertebrae? I can feel the (barely, on some horses) the slight ridges between the vertebrae, but I don't know which 'number' vertebrae I am touching.
...E. It was said at the Annual Meeting that there is a 'notch', and how easy it was to find. I have not been able to find a 'notch', and even if I found a spot that I believe to be the right place, how do I verify it is the right vertebrea? (see my concern above).
...F. We would also need to know if we are supposed to be measuring on the 'top' of the vertebrae, or the 'bottom' of the vertebrae.
4. Unless there is a specific vertebrae listed, and a fool-proof way to determine when you have found the correct one, then we (AMHA) set ourselves up for protests and law-suits.
5. We might even have to have a medical device (x-ray or ultrasound?) available to verify that a horse is measured at the correct vertebrae if there is a protest.
I do not feel that this rule change should be implemented, due the risk of law-suits, until these items are defined:
...A. Which vertebrae we are using, and whether it is the top or the bottom of it.
...B. How we can 'prove' we have measured from the correct place if there is a protest.
Of course, I think the new measuring rule should never have been passed in the first place, for all the reasons I stated above, but from a 'legal' standpoint, many of my reasons would not be enough for the Board to stop the rule from taking effect in January. BUT, prior to the 2008 Annual Meeting, The Board chose to stop the implementation of a 'protest' rule that had been passed at the 2007 Meeting, as they said that it was subject to creating law-suits. The did not have the new rule printed in the 2008 rulebook that went into effect on 1 Jan 2008. The matter was brought up at the 2008 meeting, and after MUCH discussion, a reworded version of the rule was approved by the Membership. The Membership had the option of totally laying the new rule aside, and staying with the 'old' rule, or voting on a new version of the 'protest' rule that would be enforceable and unlikely to cause a law-suit. (Since the new rule expanded a member's right to protest a horse they thought had been measured incorrectly, they opted for the revised version, vs. going back to the status quo.)
I think the potential for law-suits is even more likely with this new measuring rule , so I think the precedent has already been set that would allow the Board to block implementation. This would allow the Membership to vote to go back to the 'old' way, which is the LHOTM. Even though I don't think the LHOTM is the 'best' place, going back to that would be better than changing to the BOTW.
Just as a footnote, I hope that some day we change to the TOTW, with a grand-father clause so it does not negatively impact currently registered horses, (and I have put those proposal in at the last Annual Meeting). But, right now, stopping the BOTW measurement is more important to me than a change to the TOTW.
(edited to correct typo on LHOTM)