Letter to the editor

[kaykay]

Jason I just want movement in miniatures to be judged. The whole excessive motion thing isn't my beef but I know it is with a lot of others. Lets at least make it part of the standard.

Where the heck did Lavern go? Lavern I figured you would be all for closing the AMHR atudbook?

 

[stormy]

So a couple of comments, have just been reading and absorbing this thread

1) Do Shetlands look more like standard size breeds then Miniatures....I can not agree with this. I have pictures of my minis up at work and often get comments of "did you get a riding horse?" "If that mini were 16 hands he'd be an amazing dressage horse" etc. Shetlands look like some breeds of horses, miniatures also look like some breeds of horses.....the issue that keeps getting put aside is there are many breeds so many looks.

2) Movement, is the extreme movement of the shetland better then the movement seen in the miniature horse? I have seen shetlands that can move and shetlands that can't...being a shetland does not mean "better" movement....and what is better? A thoroughbred moves differant then an arab, differant then a saddle bred or a percheron, is one better then the other? Is a western horse a worse mover then a park horse or is it talented in its own specific area? A standard of movement acceptable for each division, Western, Country, Pleasure, Park and Roadster (and actually roadster is now representing two types of movement as well) needs to be defined and ADHERED TOO.

3) and to refer back to the original question, does the registry value the single registered horse. In this I agree with LaVern, focus is on the double registered shetland/mini to the exclusion of all others and I think in time the registry is going to feel it as the majority of the registry consists of single registered animals (I am not including AMHA registered here as that is a seperate registry). Not promoting the single registered AMHR or ASPC animals within the registry just does not make good business sense. Diversity ALWAYS brings growth.

Just my opinion for whatever it is worth...

 

[~Lisa~]

You are correct Jason but adding a horse MAY NOT BREAK LEVEL in a pleasure class gives a judge a specific movement to look for and penalize if need be

assuming that is what people are wanting to stop

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

...... A standard of movement acceptable for each division, Western, Country, Pleasure, Park and Roadster (and actually roadster is now representing two types of movement as well) needs to be defined and ADHERED TOO.

...........

We can't even get the judges to judge the different pleasure classes correctly many times, how are they gonna judge movement in a halter class???

Country horses winning Western classes, Single horses winning Country, Park winning single........

*sigh*

 

[ruffian]

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?

Not every horse is measured because not every horse is shown. Many many horses born to parents registered as 34" and under are way over. I know because I have 2 in my barn that are out of AMHA/AMHR parents (2 different sets) and both are about 36". There are folks out there that KNOW their mares or stallions are over 34" so don't show them but sell the offspring as AMHA.

 

[LaVern]

I was going to lay off for a while, but since we kind of went off on a different direction. That is what I like about the Forum, kind of like the old cafe in town.

Finished stud reports and am helping Pa(Hart) with his cause, State Legislature (It's a good one, if anyone wants to hear about it)

Kay Kay, I kind of changed my mind a few years back. One summer day, we were out in the hay field picking bales and I was grumbling away to myself, saying stuff like - "We gotta close this thing up. The ponies are gonna kill us".

Our son got that grin on his face and started goose stepping around and said. "Who do ya think you are Ma? This is America." They dare say anything when they are haying for me.

But it sort of made think. What right do I have to help make rules that tell anyone else how to breed.

Americans mix it up. The Shetland breeders did it with their ponies, outcrossed and created something different.

What if we had made rules that would have excluded Buckeroo because his mother was a Shetland. Or some of the Arenosa or Rocky because he is Shetland and some of the others. I don't know if we can change in midstream, just because we are scared. So many love them.

I know that it would make it easier for us to have a type, but who's type? I am breeding for a look I like, but the next guy might not like it. So I think that exspony is right. If we had started this thing off with a certain type, but we didn't. So our breed is pretty much dictated by the whims, that year of a few people - that perhaps have never owned a miniature horse- called judges. For a few years, you had to have a doll head, now it is movement, who knows what's next.

I guess I now feel that it should not be easy or cheap to get into our little exclusive club, but in American one guys money is a good as the next guy. What if we don't let in that elusive perfect horse? Wouldn't that be a shame.

 

[Riverrose28]

This question may be crazy, but does this $100 fee go in reverse, lets say can I hardship my "B" geldings, mares & stallions into foundation shetland or is it just for the shetlands, AMHA and fellabella to transfer into AMHR?

 

[JMS Miniatures]

This question may be crazy, but does this $100 fee go in reverse, lets say can I hardship my "B" geldings, mares & stallions into foundation shetland or is it just for the shetlands, AMHA and fellabella to transfer into AMHR?

You cannot hardship anything into ASPC, the foundation are part of the ASPC. ASPC is a recgonized breed. AMHR is not.

I really think its going to be alot harder then people realize for AMHR to become a breed. Our standard of perfection is so vague there is really no way to rule out which type should AMHR breeders should be breeding for and there is no perfect way in changing it, we are too far into it I think we would only loose members if we change it to a specific type and the way AMHR is leaning towards right now is AMHR/ASPC. There are still really good breeders out there that continue to breed quality AMHR minis and AMHA/AMHR minis. I think we'll see more AMHA members coming back into AMHR and we'll see fewer AMHA/AMHR minis because its so expensive to do both.

AMHR's Standard of Perfection:

General Impression: A small, sound, well-balanced horse which gives the impression of strength, agility, and alterness. The diposition should be eager and friendly and not skittish.

Size: The American Miniature Horse must measure not more than 34 inches at the base of the last hair on the mane for the Under division, and not more than 38 inches for Over division. Since the breed objective is the smallest possible perfect horse prefernce 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.

Priority in juding shall be in this order:

1. Soundness

2. Balance, and conformity to the standard of perfection

3. Size

Of course it goes into more detail, but all it asks for is a small well balanced sound horse. So with that being the case we continue to breed for what we want and it is our responsibility as breeders to continue that and breed for quality small horses that don't go over 38".

As far as adding movement to the halter classes I really think its just going to open up a big can of worms. I don't mind making sure they move out and have a clear consistent gait but not be judged based on who can come out with bigger movement. We have classes for that for those who want to present movement and that would be your liberty and driving classes.

As far is inspecting for AMHA horses I have seen a 40+" mini out of AMHA stock. Now who's to say if she was really out of those horses but thats where DNA comes into play and at this time AMHR doesn't require DNA. So the owner who has that 40" mini can very easily hardship her in this year and get AMHR papers and breed for AMHR foals. I'm sure it rarely happens with AMHA horses to go over 38" but who's to say it doesn't happen.

People said why don't AMHR charge as much as AMHA when it comes to hardshipping in horses. Well AMHA still accepts unregistered miniatures while AMHR is limiting the horses they bring in. I wouldn't be so much against AMHR allowing hardship of unregistered miniatures again at the prices AMHA asks if not double. Especially when the looks of AMHR becoming a recgonized breed looks so far away. If we want to continue to keep the books open and stay a height registry open the books competely by accepting unregistered miniatures and asking double the fees that AMHA asks or if we want to become a breed close the books competely, keep the standard to what we have as its obvious we have too many types of minis, allow breeding papers for those who go over 38" and those who were honest and returned their papers to the office will be allowed to get breeding papers back of those horses cause I think legally it would have to be done. Also DNA needs to be done for breeding horses.

I'm just typing thoughts out I'm positive not everyone will agree with me and won't be surprised if no one agrees with me lol.

 

[kaykay]

he fabellas are part of the ASPC

NO NO NO! LOL. Falabellas have nothing to do with ASPC! Appy color is not even allowed in Shetlands. This is why I always wondered why they were allowed to hardship in.

Everyone is getting caught up in excessive movement. Thats not at all what I am saying. Its so hard to put it in type. It doesnt have to be big or excessive but correct movement. A halter horse should be judged on more than just "not being lame"

 

[Riverrose28]

OK somebody help me out here! I have a few show horses that are only registered AMHR as they are over, they don't have any ASPC in their recent pedigree, two have been hardshipped in from AMHA, one I bred. Used to be the judges liked them and placed them, but when going to Nationals the best we could do was 10 because we didn't have ASPC look. What am I supposed to do with these guys? It's obvious from this thread that no one wants to buy them cause they are no longer show worthy, and unless I get a ASPC/AMHR stallion or mare to bred too I can forget showing at the National Level, is that right? What about my Grandsons gelding that we paid a fortune for and hardshipped into AMHR for him to show, he's 34.50" and now can no longer win at the breed level because he is not what the judges are looking for. Someone please tell me, if mini's were a fad as someone else said, what are we to do? I'll attach a picture of my grandsons gelding, and if you want I can also post pictures of a couple of mares. I'm about to cry as we are too old to change much now.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

NO NO NO! LOL. Falabellas have nothing to do with ASPC! Appy color is not even allowed in Shetlands. This is why I always wondered why they were allowed to hardship in.

Everyone is getting caught up in excessive movement. Thats not at all what I am saying. Its so hard to put it in type. It doesnt have to be big or excessive but correct movement. A halter horse should be judged on more than just "not being lame"

Opps didn't meant to put fabellas, sorry I meant foundation.

I think I understand what you mean Kay but how would it be any different then the current way now? The judges are already watching them trot on and see the movement of the horse and make sure they are sound, and soundness is suppose to be #1 of priority according to the standard. So how would they judge it differently without juding how much movement the horse has?

 

[JMS Miniatures]

OK somebody help me out here! I have a few show horses that are only registered AMHR as they are over, they don't have any ASPC in their recent pedigree, two have been hardshipped in from AMHA, one I bred. Used to be the judges liked them and placed them, but when going to Nationals the best we could do was 10 because we didn't have ASPC look. What am I supposed to do with these guys? It's obvious from this thread that no one wants to buy them cause they are no longer show worthy, and unless I get a ASPC/AMHR stallion or mare to bred too I can forget showing at the National Level, is that right? What about my Grandsons gelding that we paid a fortune for and hardshipped into AMHR for him to show, he's 34.50" and now can no longer win at the breed level because he is not what the judges are looking for. Someone please tell me, if mini's were a fad as someone else said, what are we to do? I'll attach a picture of my grandsons gelding, and if you want I can also post pictures of a couple of mares. I'm about to cry as we are too old to change much now.

I couldn't tell you all I know is I think he is nice and would like to have him in my barn. The thing to remember is quality always improves. What may be what the judges like last year there may be something even better this year. It is very hard for a horse to continue to win year after year at Nationals and the few that do are just that good. You ask what you can do with him now what about performance?

 

[Minimor]

I agree that movement should be part of the judging criteria. I do know that there are some judges, not sure how many but there are a few, who already DO judge movement when they are judging AMHR. I would say that they are not so concerned with height of action--what they want to see is freedom of movement; they want to see a stride that comes from the shoulder, with good balance front and back--they don't want to see high action, but they sure don't want to see a horse that is stilted in front with no shoulder movement and that is dragging his hocks. There is much more to good movement than height of action.

 

[kaykay]

Riverrose, a lot of showing also has to do with the handler. And no I don't mean politics. But a handler that has show ring presence and can get the best out of that horse. A great handler downplays the horses faults and shows off their best assets. I have no idea what you or your grandsons showing experience level is? Or even who showed the horse. But remember especially at a National show that makes a huge difference. Also every horse has a bad day. We hope that day isnt at Nationals but sometimes it is.

You could go back the following year to Nationals under different judges, have the horse have a better day and place higher. You just never know!

Theres no way to tell that is was because your horse didn't have an "ASPC" look.

I think your gelding is awesome. Remember a 10th at NATIONALS is a HUGE ACCOMPLISHMENT!! That is nothing to sneeze at.

So how would they judge it differently without juding how much movement the horse has?

Now see its not HOW MUCH movement a horse has - its HOW it moves. How many times do you see a mini doing the bunny hop trot? This is poor poor movement. The horse should be placed down but according to our rules, as long as the horse is not lame there should be no deduction by the judge. Now granted the horse probably has some faults that lead to the poor movement - but I have seen way too many poorly moving horses place.

I have talked to a lot of judges to pick their brains on this subject. Most agreed they wish that movement would be put in. Most said they must judge according to the rules and disregard movement (poor or great) A few said they still take it into consideration because its the right thing to do.

Like Minimor said its that length of stride, the free reaching movement. The ability to get up under themselves and propel forward. The use of the hocks etc etc.

 

[dreaminmini]

I think your horse is very nice. I also think with the amount of horses that show at Nationals that a top ten result is awesome. You can always look for a new challenge with them. There is driving, jumping, halter obstacle. They are more fun as far as I am concerned and I like the fat that it is also based in teamwork. My horse and I together. Keep showing them in halter, good comfirmation is good confirmation and you will get your share of ribbons. But also find another class you like and enjoy.

I couldn't tell you all I know is I think he is nice and would like to have him in my barn. The thing to remember is quality always improves. What may be what the judges like last year there may be something even better this year. It is very hard for a horse to continue to win year after year at Nationals and the few that do are just that good. You ask what you can do with him now what about performance?

 

[JMS Miniatures]

See IMO judges should already be doing that because if the horse can't move out then the horse itself isn't structurally sound. Also it talks about movement in the standard. I understand what you are saying but I don't understand why judges aren't all ready doing that.

Body: Well-muscled with good bone and substance, well sprung ribs, level topline, as nearly as possible of equal height in withers and rump, fore and hind quarters well angulated, so that the horse in movement shows a smooth gait.

Shoulder: Long, sloping and well-angulated, allowing a free swinging stride and alert head/neck carriage. Well muscled forearm.

 

[dreaminmini]

Well, if that was the case why are the halter horses and performance horses for the most part different. Specifically the very straight almost square croup of the halter horses that move very bouncy and primly but you get the performance horses with a rounder croup for getting more under themselves for more power and a smoother gait and they are virtually ignored in the halter ring? But the "halter horses" don't exactly follow the form and function idea, IMO.

 

[Getitia]

Well, if that was the case why are the halter horses and performance horses for the most part different. Specifically the very straight almost square croup of the halter horses that move very bouncy and primly but you get the performance horses with a rounder croup for getting more under themselves for more power and a smoother gait and they are virtually ignored in the halter ring? But the "halter horses" don't exactly follow the form and function idea, IMO

Just a little different perspective - for the past 15+ years, we have been showing horses in halter pretty successfully at the National level and then taking these same halter horses and showing them pretty successfully in performance -year after year, after year - some of these horses are registered amha/amhr, others amhr and yet others are aspc/amhr. From a breeder perspective, we always select our breeding stock with form to function in mind ( with just a touch of brains as an added measure)

. The type or number of registration papers does not make the horse great. JMHO

 

[~Lisa~]

A judge can only judge by the rules we the membership set forth in our rule book. Judging is very subjective we all know that however if there is nothing specific in the rule book you can expect them to either hold that missing something against them or to a higher level.

 

[dreaminmini]

Just a little different perspective - for the past 15+ years, we have been showing horses in halter pretty successfully at the National level and then taking these same halter horses and showing them pretty successfully in performance -year after year, after year - some of these horses are registered amha/amhr, others amhr and yet others are aspc/amhr. From a breeder perspective, we always select our breeding stock with form to function in mind ( with just a touch of brains as an added measure)

. The type or number of registration papers does not make the horse great. JMHO

Getitia,

You have very beautiful horses and this was in no way directed at your horses or anyone specifically for that matter. That is what we should all be striving for to produce a horse of good conformation that allows it to be successful in all facets of it's life. But IMO there is still a different look to alot of the halter horse than the performance horse and have heard a big name trainer deem a horse "not a halter horse" but a fantastic performance prospect.