Letter to the editor

[JMS Miniatures]

How would you begin to close it Kay?

 

[Karen S]

Pretty Easy really...

January 1, 2018, books will closed to ALL hardshipping of miniatures coming from ASPC, AMHA & Falaballa.

This gives ALL breeders time to do what they need or want to and then after that day, zoom, no more. Books closed period. Six years out to prepare and no one can say they were caught with their pants down!

Karen

 

[kaykay]

I would add one more thing to what Karen said. You would probably need a real breed standard instead of the vague one given right now for AMHR miniatures.

 

[Minimor]

I'm not sure what a more detailed standard of perfection will accomplish. The existing one already describes good conformation without giving a specific type...and if it becomes more detailed to describe an exact type there are going to be many unhappy people--because any specific description will leave out a good many horses.

However, you could have a more specific description, even describing a very specific type, and no one will recognize it for what it is anyway...

Here is the Morgan standard of perfection: Morgan Standard It is very specific, and perfectly describes the diagram on the page. So, we have a detailed description and a diagram....and do you know how many Morgans--show ring champions!--there are that do not resemble this description?

 

[disneyhorse]

Just find it interesting that people don't want an "extreme looking/moving Shetland type" yet when I tell people I have Shetlands, even horse people, they all immediately picture a fat, hairy, stumpy kid's pony. They are always shocked when they see them and say in photos they look to be Arab sized.

So it's no wonder people in the show ring want more refinement and movement. The American Shetland bloodlines easily contribute these qualities through a gene pool that's a little older and a bit more free from the period of time when minis were bred for small size only with less regard to movement or conformation.

To me, the "foundation type" mini was simply a transition between the phases of small-at-any-cost and the current animal we have now through more decades of selective breeding.

That said, I have no problem with the foundation halter class idea, except that minis already have a rediculous amount of classes already.

Andrea

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I'm for one that wishes to see the halter classes be presented by type. No more divided by height except for Under and Over. Over the past couple of years I'm seeing the halter entries dwindle but the performance is rising. I think if you broke it down by type you will see more entries. I agree I just don't see how we can have much of a detailed standard when there are so many types.

Also another thing to consider is would AMHR have to accept horses that go over 38" cause would it be a legal matter if they don't? So would those that go over be given breeding papers instead if they are out of AMHR registered stock?

 

[Minimor]

And by the way -- I LOVE ALL the different types, but I prefer the ones that "newbies or non-horse people" don't first identify as a Shetland!

Here's the thing--and actually Andrea does cover this already...

I have Shetlands and Minis....and when people here--be they newbies, non-horse people, or horse people--see my Shetlands they say WHAT ARE THOSE? They are shocked when I say Shetlands, because when they think Shetlands they are thinking the little dumpy ponies that everyone knew as kids.

My minis--I've got a number of Minis that are up in that 37-38" range and I've had people come here & look at them and ask if those are Minis....or ponies? They apparently think that Minis are supposed to be only a couple of feet tall, and the 36 to 38" ones must be ponies. Now please realize that this tall B Minis of mine are not Shetland (well, not Shetland unless you count the fact that some of them are, for example, BOB grandsons, and BOB of course has shetland parentage....if I suggest that BOB is a shetland I'm sure some here will have a cow--and so I repeat my Minis are not Shetlands. Nor are they all dumpy little "pit pony" types, though I do have some shorties that have that tendency! They are "straight Miniatures"...and yet people think they are ponies because they don't realize that Minis come in sizes up to 38".

Now my Shetlands--and they are not Hackneys--unless some have hackney way back where in their pedigrees--most of mine do qualify for their Foundation seals though at least one of my sealed ponies is too tall to show in Foundation...I have one that looks like a miniature Saddlebred, a couple that look like miniature Arabs, a couple that move like warmbloods. So....my Shetlands look like horses, and my Minis look like ponies.

If minis are supposed to look like horses in miniature, what is the problem in their looking like Shetlands....who look like horses....meaning the Minis would then look like small horses...as opposed to a "real Mini" who looks like a "pony" meaning it looks like the ponies of yesteryear...

Morgans have a very exact breed standard--a standard which describes type as well as good conformation, because Morgans have always been expected to look like Justin Morgan, their one & only official founding father. Miniatures--have never had a specific type. So how is everyone ever going to agree on what they should look like? As said above--QH? Arab? Morgan? Draft? TB? Welsh? You want it to look like a miniature horse--but which horse is it to be a miniature of? The only uniform thing about miniatures is their smaller size. Which means they are a height breed. Can they ever be more than a height breed? I'm not sure.

If you close the registry...will you then allow all offspring of two AMHR parents to be registered and to retain their papers no matter how tall they end up at maturity? A breed can specify a size range or height limit for showing, but can a breed take away papers of a horse that grows too tall? I don't think so--I think a real breed means the horse is that breed no matter what.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Here's the thing--and actually Andrea does cover this already...

I have Shetlands and Minis....and when people here--be they newbies, non-horse people, or horse people--see my Shetlands they say WHAT ARE THOSE? They are shocked when I say Shetlands, because when they think Shetlands they are thinking the little dumpy ponies that everyone knew as kids.

My minis--I've got a number of Minis that are up in that 37-38" range and I've had people come here & look at them and ask if those are Minis....or ponies? They apparently think that Minis are supposed to be only a couple of feet tall, and the 36 to 38" ones must be ponies. Now please realize that this tall B Minis of mine are not Shetland (well, not Shetland unless you count the fact that some of them are, for example, BOB grandsons, and BOB of course has shetland parentage....if I suggest that BOB is a shetland I'm sure some here will have a cow--and so I repeat my Minis are not Shetlands. Nor are they all dumpy little "pit pony" types, though I do have some shorties that have that tendency! They are "straight Miniatures"...and yet people think they are ponies because they don't realize that Minis come in sizes up to 38".

Now my Shetlands--and they are not Hackneys--unless some have hackney way back where in their pedigrees--most of mine do qualify for their Foundation seals though at least one of my sealed ponies is too tall to show in Foundation...I have one that looks like a miniature Saddlebred, a couple that look like miniature Arabs, a couple that move like warmbloods. So....my Shetlands look like horses, and my Minis look like ponies.

If minis are supposed to look like horses in miniature, what is the problem in their looking like Shetlands....who look like horses....meaning the Minis would then look like small horses...as opposed to a "real Mini" who looks like a "pony" meaning it looks like the ponies of yesteryear...

Morgans have a very exact breed standard--a standard which describes type as well as good conformation, because Morgans have always been expected to look like Justin Morgan, their one & only official founding father. Miniatures--have never had a specific type. So how is everyone ever going to agree on what they should look like? As said above--QH? Arab? Morgan? Draft? TB? Welsh? You want it to look like a miniature horse--but which horse is it to be a miniature of? The only uniform thing about miniatures is their smaller size. Which means they are a height breed. Can they ever be more than a height breed? I'm not sure.

If you close the registry...will you then allow all offspring of two AMHR parents to be registered and to retain their papers no matter how tall they end up at maturity? A breed can specify a size range or height limit for showing, but can a breed take away papers of a horse that grows too tall? I don't think so--I think a real breed means the horse is that breed no matter what.

Sadly I agree with you lol.

I still would like to see them add a type halter class I think it can be as popular when they added the western class but will it happen who knows.

Its just not that simple to say we will close the registry in 5 or 10 years and no more hardshipping. It has to be planned out. Like I said before and what Minimor has said what happens to those who go over once we become a breed? Will they be given breeding papers? What happens to those who had to turn in papers will they be given back if it happens? Just not that simple, too many legal matter. Like I said do I see us becoming a breed, yes, but I'm still young so who knows when lol. I guess we will see if AMHA closes how it will play out.

 

[JennyB]

Okay I DON'T think it's fair that AMHA horses/ponies whatever you want to call them as most of you know how I feel about the subject.. don't need to be inspected by a judge and steward if they want their animals to be reg. with AMHR and that is wrong!. I am glad that Falabella's need to be inspected and I am NOT against the $100.fee(the economy bites right now!) to hardship an ASPC, AMHA or Falabella into AMHR. All the rules that AMHA has with their HIGH hardship fees(which are now defunct) and DNA testing, AMHR could bite us if we are not careful with the same rules! That doesn't make me any less disappointed with AMHR for not putting into effect the inspecting of AMHA animals! ...Thats the bottom line!...... If they don't it, it doesn't devalue ASPC or AMHR animals, but the only thing it does do is allow people with 34"+ animals into the R registry and with no inspection and if their AMHA animal comes in a 1/4 or 3/4 inches over 34", then hey they can show in the B classes. BUT if a judge and steward rated the AMHA animal after inspected those animals could only show in the A classes and that would be fair....

 

I have also heard many times a lot of conplaints about 34+" AMHR animals breaking the rules also and staying in the A classes and for that matter 38"+ too, but no one seems to want to put the $50. up to protest!

 

With the economy sucking like it does now, I feel that it's a good thing for a year, but like I said they need to inspect AMHA's just as they do Falabella's. I don't think in the long run though it will hurt anything. They(AMHR)will eventually close the books when they feel they have enough stock to go with.

 

Also what Renee said about Audrey Barrett(yes you got her name wrong)...she did cull more than most people. When she found a pony that she didn't like she would either sell it or she would give them anyway to hundreds of children who couldn't afford a pony, with a saddle and bridle for them to learn to take care of the ponies, learn to ride, show, parade and mostly to learn resposibility for the future as an adult. She received wayyy more pleasure from the children because of that, than any awards she ever got for her ponies. That didn't mean she didn't strive very hard to breed the pony "she" liked and what other breeders would also want.... To be honest she really didn't like the Miniature horses or as she called them Midget ponies and was sure they would be a fad and fade away, not like the Shetland pony who has solid roots into the 1800's. She did however support AMHR when they first started by registering a few of her small ponies, but beyond that she loved her American Shetland ponies 100% all the way!

 

In the Shetland pony boom many breeders offered Midget ponies because quite honestly like I have said before 90% of Miniatures are Shetland ponies as they bred them and got midget ponies! After the boom and revlaidation you couldn't give away a pony for pennies! So all those ponies that were the rage and sold for $50,00 minus or plus were worthless. Many, many were small and under 38" and thru selective breeding became under 34" tall. I know I am way off the subject here, but am very passionate about the word's "Miniature Horse"!

 

We had 5 Arenosa ponies that we had to hardship and pay the high price for into AMHR. We also had a judge and steward inspect them. We would be happy to pay only $100. or $200. for this year only if we had any, but all of ours are already double registered. If we get another Arenosa pony in the future who needs it's R papers, we will pay the higher fee, but it DOESN'T devalue our Arenosa Miniature Ponies...heavens NO...if anything it has helped their value tremendously so owners can show either ASPC or AMHR. Will it help AMHA, yes because it will give owners the ability to show their animals at AMHA and AMHR shows...if they are inspected!!! ...if that doesn't happen ..well what are ya really gonna to do?...I would like to vote for every issue that comes along with ASPC/AMHR especially in this electronic age, but will it happen...probably not...I would like my own person vote for what President is elected to the USA, but our electorial votes prevent that from happening and ironically the electorial votes were started to help the votes come in when the country people could not get to a voting post, now it is abused to hilt and that is sad..

 

Off my soapbox!

Jenny

 

[Minimor]

Jenny--the protest fee for AMHR is $100, not $50.

As for AMHA horses not being inspected....I believe that the assumption is that an AMHA horse will be under 38 inches and that by virtue of having AMHA papers it probably isn't a dwarf or anything else likely to be rejected. It is my understanding that ASPC and Falabella are inspected mainly for height...more than anything the judge obseerves while the steward measures, just to verify that the height noted on the hardship application is correct...

 

[JennyB]

Jenny--the protest fee for AMHR is $100, not $50.

As for AMHA horses not being inspected....I believe that the assumption is that an AMHA horse will be under 38 inches and that by virtue of having AMHA papers it probably isn't a dwarf or anything else likely to be rejected. It is my understanding that ASPC and Falabella are inspected mainly for height...more than anything the judge obseerves while the steward measures, just to verify that the height noted on the hardship application is correct...

The $50.00 for the protest fee for any protests at shows. Yes I know that the AMHR fees for 2012 will be $100. for mares and $200. for stallions. Well I do get your point, but don't ya think that the owners of AMHA animals are going to reg. with AMHR so their 34.25" er's will be able to show once again?

 

The point behind the A & B section to begin with was to keep them in their proper size divisions and when their permanent card came up as a 3-year-old and they measured 34 1/4" the were bumped up to the B divison. I believe if ASPC and Falabella's are measured so must the AMHA animals...JMO

 

Jenny

 

[Minimor]

The $50.00 for the protest fee for any protests at shows.

No, the protest fee for anything at a show is $100, not $50. That changed awhile ago...2 or 3 years ago anyway? I believe the $100 is in the 2008 rulebook so I guess it's been that for at least 4 years now.

AMHA horses can be hardshipped into AMHR at any age. Falabellas and ASPC have to be at least 3 years old--

 

[kaykay]

Just a question, my friend, Kay!!!

And WHAT would they base that on?? The "new" Shetland-type miniature -- or the "foundation-type" miniature, or.......

Well I guess if no one wants a set type (which is extremely odd for a breed) then at least add in movement to the standard and rule book. Right now miniature horses are never judged on movement. They only trot to show they are not lame. Which for years was a huge disservice to the miniature horse.

The whole reason we have so many types is because there is no set type. Its a viscous circle.

Just because a horse has AMHA papers in no way means you can assume its 34" just like you cannot assume a falabella or aspc is 38" or under. My lone AMHA mare is 36" the same height as most of my ASPC/AMHR. I revoked her AMHA papers but we all know that many never do.

For years I have watched people say there can be no more classes added. There are too many now. Yet notice how new classes do get added.

Showing by type doesn't always work. Just look at the Shetland classes. They added Classic because they were getting too extreme. Then they added Foundation because the Classics were too extreme. Now Foundation is getting too extreme. Until you have judges that stop this it doesn't matter how many types you add.

Now having said that I have always been in favor of a foundation mini class. But I know its not a cure all. Then again if AMHR is not a breed then the foundation class is to preserve what? Normally it is to preserve the type the BREED started with.

And yes if AMHR were a breed then horses cannot lose their papers for going over height. Big deal. They cannot show but they never lose their papers. This is how most horse breeds handle it. Why would that be a deal breaker? Makes no sense to me.

I guess until members can clearly show what they want -- AMHR will stay a height only registry?

 

[Sue_C.]

They are shocked when I say Shetlands, because when they think Shetlands they are thinking the little dumpy ponies that everyone knew as kids.

Well, truthfully, they are not "technically" Shetlands anymore...there still is a registered TRUE Shetland Pony, with no outside influence, that is still that same well-loved fuzzy, dumpy little pony from the UK. What you/we are talking about is the AMERICAN Shetland...not the same critter at all.

 

[ruffian]

"Morgans have a very exact breed standard--a standard which describes type as well as good conformation, because Morgans have always been expected to look like Justin Morgan, their one & only official founding father"

Interesting that you bring up the Morgans as it's almost impossible nowadays to find a "Justin Morgan" looking Morgan. Many look like Saddlebreds, 16+ hands and huge movement. Last Morgan show I went to I couldn't find more than 3 original looking Morgans.

Going back to Mary Lou's comment "If they print it", the Journal absolutely should. If it's a signed letter from a member, there should be no reason NOT to print it unless they are censoring their membership's point of view.

 

[~Lisa~]

Adding movement to description of class rules could change everything. Do you feel that minis should not break level or have excessive movement in a pleasure class then right up a rule proposal to say so.

Once that rule is passed judges can have something to go to.

Want to get even further make sure you describe what you want to be seen as excessive movement be specific and send in a rule proposal.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I have heard people wanting to add movement to be judged in AMHR halter class like they present the shetlands. Yet again I think that will just make it more harder to show in a halter class. I would not be near competitive if I showed my western horse in halter against a pleasure horse cause we know judges like movement. Again its more about type.

As far as the inspection goes for AMHA one point has been brought up ASPC and Fabella horses are inspected but they can only be 3 or older to be hardshipped in. Whereas AMHA horses can be any age to be hardshipped. We all know height doesn't always play by the rules. I would be for inspection of AMHA horses but perhaps in order for them to get their pernament papers they must be inspected and measured. Or change it to where AMHA horses must be 3 years of age.

Kay I agree with most of everything you have said, and I agree about the breeding papers but what about those who have turned in the papers in the past will they be able to get those back?

 

[kaykay]

Lisa I agree it would have to be written very carefully with a lot of thought. I do think by never having movement addressed for miniatures it really hurt them. Especially back in the beginning because again it put all the emphasis on small. We are still paying for that today with minis with tiny hips, locking stifle etc.

JMS I think a movement paragraph similiar to what is written for foundation (or maybe classic?) Shetlands would work well. I wanted to copy and paste it but cant get it off the online rule book.

Right now in MY opinion our miniatures are shown way too much like a dog. Lets show them like horses! A horses way of going is so important and to not even address it in halter classes is crazy to me.

Kay I agree with most of everything you have said, and I agree about the breeding papers but what about those who have turned in the papers in the past will they be able to get those back?

I thought about that last night and I really think you could only go forward from the date of the rule passage. It would be a paperwork nightmare for the office to try and go backwards. One thing I know is it a rule proposal makes it too hard for the office; it won't pass.

But at least there would not be anymore miniatures losing their papers due to height. We may even find that without that horses might get measured better at shows. Its a lot of pressure for a steward to measure a horse out completely knowing the horse will lose its papers. Not a lot have the guts to do it even when they know they should.

Im not sure even now what that number or percentage would be. I think its probably very low.

 

[TomEHawk]

Added a line in our standard of perfection, (or any where in the rulebook), that excessive movement to be penalized or undesired is pointless. That is a very grey area as well. The ASPC has that line in a few different areas of the rulebook, (modern pleasure, classic & foundation), and there are always someone complaining that the pony that has won in any division as moving too much. I can tell you that within my clients there are many different ideas of what movement is "too extreme" or what is "just right" for whatever division they are showing in.

As for type, there are the same problems there. The ASPC offers three different types, moderns, classics & foundations. Many times I hear complaints that there isn't much difference between them, (which I do agree with). There is always complaints that classics look & move too much like a modern and that there are foundations that look and move too much like a classic. heck, there is complaints that some moderns look & move too much like classics, of course the complaint is mainly in the modern pleasure classes. But the modern pleasure is a grey are division to begin with.

So, I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the AMHR, (or any other miniature registry), cannot really have a standard of perfection that tries to exclude or limit movement & different types when for so many years it has been open to register anything that would meet the hieght restrictions.

 

[Sandee]

Maybe I'm dense but I don't understand the argument about AMHA having to be measured or age 3. If they have AMHA papers they are born of parents 34" and under so. If they go over the 34 so what in AMHR. Every horse is measured at shows; at least at the beginning of the season and go in classes to fit the height. What am I not seeing here?