Measuring... heard talk of a new proposal...

[Minimor]

Carin - songcatcher is saying that because owners don't want to show their ASPC/AMHR horses as Shetlands they must be inferior...and if someone doesn't want to show their AMHR horse as a show pony then it must be inferior. My post above was in response to that.

I KNOW that the ASPC/AMHR horses can be competitive as Shetlands, or at least some of them can. I also know that some of them are not suitable for showing as Shetlands--just because some do well in Shetland classes doesn't mean they all do. I'm not saying those are inferior, they just don't fit into the type--they are essentially Miniatures and just don't do well as Shetlands. Their owners have tried showing them as Shetlands, and they don't do anything in that ring. That doesn't make them inferior, and I don't like seeing anyone refer to them as such.

 

[Songcatcher]

Lots of issues brought up in several posts here and a lot of it does really begin to make sense to me. First of all let me say that I have NO personal knowledge of the Show Ponies (NSPR? ASPR?) My statements are based entirely on earlier (unrelated) threads complaining about AMHA oversize horses not having a place in the registry and when brought up about R horses going over 38, some people responded emphatically that they did have a place to go as they could be registered as Show Ponies. I understand the concept of being inappropriate as opposed to inferior. Sometimes it takes a lot of head banging to get a point across/through.

 

Belinda pointed out that she wanted to hear people's ideas on this proposal so that changes could be made when it came up to be voted on. I have stated my ideas and other people have stated their ideas. My preference is TOTW and not raise the height because I prefer small. If they change the measurement to TOTW and raise the heights, I can live with that and be perfectly content. If they leave it the way it is, I can live with that (even though I think it is misleading).

 

Either way, I will continue to breed for the smallest correctly proportioned horse I can. They make me happy regardless of what lable they have on them.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

I hope what I have to say will not shut this thread, but this is a prime example.

Last year I gelded my B stallion. Who has shown since he was a yearling in 2001. During that time he was won an AMHR National Title, over a dozen Top Tens at Nationals, has 11 measurement cards, shown against 408 other horses, in over 100 classes, under 50+ judges and is 1 point from HOF.

Because of sour grapes, he was protested. He was been measured in two weeks earlier at the first show of the season and at the second qualifying show was involved in a protest. He was measured at (we will say one inch over the limit). For 8 months this protest was tied up, during that time he was not allowed to attend Mini Nationals (of which he was fully qualified to attend). When he was finally remeasured by the association, he was not found to be over 38. I received a letter stating please enjoy showing your miniature.

At the remeasurement, I asked to have a measurement off the top of the wither, sine thee was a rumor he was 39.5 tall. Well he measured 39 exact on top of the high withers.

So how would this effect this pony (AMHR only).

At the actual protest I was told to just show him shetland. HE IS NOT A SHETLAND, NOR HAS ASPC PAPERS. Am I to throw away the last 9 years I invested in my only mini?

Tired of the BS, I had no problem registering him as a NSPR, but was told by the registry he could not be registered without DNA. Well both of his AMHA parents deceased, no dna since they were grandfathered in. I would not mind taking him to Congress to show, but can't even do that. What would you do?

 

[Songcatcher]

Carin - songcatcher is saying that because owners don't want to show their ASPC/AMHR horses as Shetlands they must be inferior...and if someone doesn't want to show their AMHR horse as a show pony then it must be inferior. My post above was in response to that.

I KNOW that the ASPC/AMHR horses can be competitive as Shetlands, or at least some of them can. I also know that some of them are not suitable for showing as Shetlands--just because some do well in Shetland classes doesn't mean they all do. I'm not saying those are inferior, they just don't fit into the type--they are essentially Miniatures and just don't do well as Shetlands. Their owners have tried showing them as Shetlands, and they don't do anything in that ring. That doesn't make them inferior, and I don't like seeing anyone refer to them as such.

Minimor, this is at least the second time in the last month or so that you have misquoted me and I resent it. Let me explain for myself what I mean and quit accusing me of something I did not say. Their have been previous posts on this thread where OWNERS of small Shetlands have said that their horses just could not compete in the Shetland classes. That was not me. I was simply making reference to their posts.

 

I am beginning to lose respect for you big time. That is a shame as I used to really value your posts.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

I forgot to mention when I spoke with the home office, it was suggested that if I could not register him I could dna him and register his foals. He is a gelding now.

He was also leased so that a 4 year old would have a leadline pony and eventually a youth halter pony. But now does not want to have her child's pony (sorry I dislike typing mini) yanked away from her or protested due to sour grapes because the mother also wants to show him too.

Because of the controversy that was settled by the association, there will always be sour grapes and someone going after papers and height because they don't want competition.

I agree proper measurements being performed. When there is a variance of 3 inches in two weeks, some measuring sticks need to be validated to make sure they are correct.

 

[alphahorses]

Excellent excellent posts..... both Kim and Getitia!!

Susan O.

Ditto

(Refers to posts #165 and #167)

 

[LaVern]

I have to change my vote. Not because I don't think that measuring at the withers is more accurate and easier, but because after reading all the posts a couple times,I think it would just be a mess. I had looked at it too simplistically. There are far reaching consequences that I had not considered.

But, this is what is so great about brainstorming and getting things out there, had I gone to convention and voted without all your knowledge, I perhaps would have voted to change the way we measure and the ramifications down the line could be great.

I now feel that we should leave things the way they are. From the bottom of my heart I thank Lisa for brining this to our attention and Belinda for being so forthright.

 

[muffntuf]

'

I totally disagree - she maybe eligible for the Show Pony Registry - but she will not be able to compete. As it stands, the ASPR registry follows most of the Modern Pony rules and if you haven't seen a Modern Pony move - you do not understand that your statement is in error. Even my Classic ponies cannot compete under the current rules as and ASPR pony, even though they are eligible to be registered.

NOW - if you want to start sending in rule proposals and changes - that will take many years to complete the ASPR section - then they really cannot compete - I DID NOT SAY they couldn't be registered - they cannot compete. So please re-assess your comments about "They can go to the ASPR registry".

Thanks!

I am going to reply to my own post here and give you the introduction for the ASPR out of the rulebook - I was mistaken, if the AMHR is only AMHR, it is not eligible to be an ASPR. If it is ASPC/AMHR registered, it is:

SECTION VIII

AMERICAN SHOW PONY REGISTRY

Part 1 – Eligibility

Any pony that is registered with the American Shetland

Pony Club, the Hackney Horse Society or any pony that is the

result of the mating of a registered Shetland and a registered

Hackney Pony, any pony that is the result of the mating of a

registered Shetland and a registered American Show Pony, any

pony that is the result of the mating of a registered Hackney

and a registered American Show Pony, or any pony that is the

result of the mating of a registered American Show Pony to an

American Show Pony is eligible to be recorded in the stud book

of the ASPR upon the completion of an application for

registration and submission of the appropriate fee.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

The registry is the National Show Pony Registry. This is a performance only division. I show in this division and proudly state that I have shetlands and show ponies. There's would have to be a huge overhaul of the program to allow oversize minis.

Currently registration depends upon a dna sample. That is to prove it is an offspring to the dna'ed parents, of which AMHR does not require.

Perhaps if they opened it to any horse currently holding registration papers being able to be registered, this may work. But there are no halter classes for this division.

 

[Devon]

I wasn't going to say this, but I guess I will after all.

All this talk about and pointing fingers at horses that seem to be inferior. Keep in mind that I wouldn't personally use the word "inferior" to describe them, but that's how some want to call them, so that is the word I will use here. Perhaps some of these horses are inferior when it comes to competing in the Shetland ring, and perhaps some of them are inferior when it comes to competing as a National Show Pony, but a good many of them are WINNING in the AMHR ring. So, I ask you this--when you have inferior ponies winning AMHR classes, what does that say about things???

I was talking about this with someone yesterday. She asked me what is the point of this proposal. I said I wasn't really sure, that I get why measuring at the withers is a good thing, but I don't get why it's necessary to reduce height at the same time. I don't see why the horses cannot remain at the same height as they've always been, only now they would be recognized as their true height at the withers. She said that it sounds to her like someone just wants to eliminate the taller horses that so often are winning in the ring--a sore loser way of getting rid of some competition. Well, you know when she put it that way I wasn't sure what to say--I couldn't really argue with that statement. It does have that note to it.

Moving horses from AMHR into National show pony...first off that means added expense in terms of DNA. Secondly, there is no place to show NSPR other than Congress, because currently Congress is the only show that offers NSPR classes. As I recall, all that is offered there is one driving class, one western class and one english class. That alone lets Miniatures out of the competition, other than the driving class....because how many Miniatures, even the tall ones, get ridden walk, trot, canter by anyone other than small children? The majority of owners don't have small children that can ride w/t/c. "Dump your tall breeding stock or move their offspring into NSPR" isn't much of an alternative! NSPR was intended for the bigger ponies....where ASPC or AMHR is crossed on a bigger horse to produce a 13 or 13.2 hh pony.

That is kind of how I feel about this whole thing being it has no real point other then maybe accuracy but probably not.. and "everyone else does it"..

 

[Songcatcher]

I am going to reply to my own post here and give you the introduction for the ASPR out of the rulebook - I was mistaken, if the AMHR is only AMHR, it is not eligible to be an ASPR. If it is ASPC/AMHR registered, it is:

SECTION VIII

AMERICAN SHOW PONY REGISTRY

Part 1 – Eligibility

Any pony that is registered with the American Shetland

Pony Club, the Hackney Horse Society or any pony that is the

result of the mating of a registered Shetland and a registered

Hackney Pony, any pony that is the result of the mating of a

registered Shetland and a registered American Show Pony, any

pony that is the result of the mating of a registered Hackney

and a registered American Show Pony, or any pony that is the

result of the mating of a registered American Show Pony to an

American Show Pony is eligible to be recorded in the stud book

of the ASPR upon the completion of an application for

registration and submission of the appropriate fee.

Thank you Muffntuff and Crabtree Farm for your explanations. This is certainly a contradiction to what I have heard "B" size breeders state on other threads in justifying R over A because A had no place for oversize horses. But, you have the proof and I accept it. That certainly does give more credence to the concern for taller horses being lost.

In regards to others claiming that I said smaller horses are inferior, That is in no way true. I breed for smaller and I support the smaller. And, that does not mean that I don't respect those who prefer the taller ones either. "I like coffee, you like tea." So what.

 

[R3]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the IDEA of measuring at the Top of the Withers (TOTW). Belinda showed us a proposal that is currently IN DRAFT FORM (not necessarily a ‘final’ version), and asked for feedback. This is our opportunity to state what we like or dislike about the idea, as presented, to ‘tweak’ what she has, to offer ideas that might be totally different, or to state that we want measuring to stay the same as it always has been and give our reasons why.

I think that some folks have not read all of the ideas that have been presented in these 20+ pages; which is fully understandable, since it is almost as much as a book now, LOL, and have the wrong idea about what it would or wouldn’t do. Some of the concerns are ‘fixable’ by Grandfathering, which is included in the proposal that Belinda presented. Other things are ones that need to be discussed, and all opinions shared, both pro and con.

As I said before, I have supported the idea of measuring at the top of the withers for some time, and have proposed a similar thing in AMHA. I can assure you that when I was proposing it there, it had absolutely nothing to do with tall vs. short, AMHA/AMHR, AMHR/ASPC or showing of Shetlands, or any of those other ‘over-tones’ that have been injected into this discussion. It didn’t have anything to do with thinking that taller horses were inferior in any way. I just simply wanted to have our ‘horses’ measured like ‘horses’, and for me, that it not increase the size of the horses in the registry.

I come from a long history of ‘big’ horses, and where we measure miniatures makes no sense to me at all. It is totally arbitrary. Every time I tell my ‘big’ horse friends how we measure, they give me a funny look and ask if I’m serious… But, beyond measuring at the Last Hair of the Mane (LHOTHM) being an arbitrary, non-HORSE, way of measuring, I don’t believe it a good way to do things. As has already been said on this topic; we are the only type of ‘horse’ in the world that can ‘grow’ because it got a bad haircut (someone slipped with the clippers and took off some mane hair).

I think it is reasonable to say, based on all the comments, that there is hardly anyone agrees with the proposal as it is currently written. I have already suggested one alternate idea (on page 10) but now I’m going to present another for review and comment. I will start another topic with this new, unofficial, 'proposal' for suggestions and comments. This thread is getting so long, that ‘tweaks’ to the original proposal are getting lost in the volume and not getting commented on.

 

[~Lisa~]

'

I totally disagree - she maybe eligible for the Show Pony Registry - but she will not be able to compete. As it stands, the ASPR registry follows most of the Modern Pony rules and if you haven't seen a Modern Pony move - you do not understand that your statement is in error. Even my Classic ponies cannot compete under the current rules as and ASPR pony, even though they are eligible to be registered.

Thanks!

This is very off subject but Trace you are not fully correct.. I brought this up at Convention.. there are areas that do not have actual ASPR ponies (meaning what the division was intended for) and in those areas it is only a matter of time until a pony/ponies who has gone over their height divison will register into ASPR and show there and being they are the only ones will of course win and be competitive (amongst themselves)

Of course in a area with established ASPR ponies that will not happen but again with so few ASPR ponies even registered many places simply do not have them or have only one ect.

I know why they opened it up and understand the intent behind it but as with everything those who are out to do whatever it takes for that.50 cent ribbon will take advantage of that situation but you can not rule or

regulate morals and ethics....

However in addition to all ofthat I do think often when people say show pony registry they are not understanding the difference between the ASPR and the NSPR

 

[StarRidgeAcres]

I don't have a lot of horses so maybe I shouldn't really have a say. There are folks that have 50-100 or more horses and they will be impacted at a greater rate for a longer time than someone as myself. But, without totally oversimplifying things, aren't most of us concerned about the same thing? The future value of our horses?

Regardless of size, those of us that show or sell to homes that show, we all know the height is a HUGE deal. It doesn't matter if your horse is A sized, B sized or one of the taller pony registrations, it's the same. You constantly fear the thought of your horse measuring up into the next class (and wow, certainly God forbid, the next division) because now you are competing against horses that are much taller and we all know, with everything else being equal, the taller horse usually wins. It does NOT matter if it's Raven, who under the current rules measures 27.5" or if it's a B sized AMHR horse that currently measures 37.5". We have the same fears. We all try to have our horse be as tall as possible FOR THE SPECIFIC CLASS they are showing in. So if Raven now has to show in 28-30" we all know she'll actually being showing against horses probably as tall as 31" and those THREE INCHES will make a difference.

And, again thinking of myself, what about my mares that are currently 34" (or close to) and are double registered? Six years from now, when this has been in place for a few years, who is going to buy those mares? Again, we try to produce the tallest possible without going over a certain number. For me that number, for my breeding mares, has been 34". I love the tinies, but I know that what sells is more leg so I have SEVERAL broodmares that push that 34" mark - hoping to add some leg to a few of my babies that I sell and then keep the tiniers ones for myself. What happens when it's time to sell those mares?

Again, I believe most of our fears are the same - the future value of our show and breeding stock. All I ask those putting their time and effort into the proposal is to think into the future. Really look hard at the LONG TERM implications of the proposal. And then those that vote do the same. Don't shoot from the hip; give it real thought.

We all just want our horses to continue to increase in value, not go the other direction. Simple really.

 

[REO]

Freeland, I said if AMHA followed suit. In AMHA you can't say so what, they'll just be Bs now. They're out.

Speaking in general and not to anyone specific:

I don't understand why raising the height two inches is so bad. READ CAREFULLY THE FOLLOWING.

If I have a 10 year old mare that is 32" at the last mane hairs, and it is changed to measure at the top of the withers, and she is now "34". Her height wasn't raised! She's the same horse. She's the same height she always was. She didn't grow. If the height was raised 2" they would still be the same horses, the same height they already were. So how is that raising the height and letting bigger horses in? If it measures within the limit HONESTLY no matter where it's measured, then what's the big deal about raising the height to allow for the withers? That is allowing for the withers on the same horse, not allowing a taller horse in.

If you have breeding horses that are grandfathered in, but are now thought of as "over", what happens when you want to sell them? No one will want to buy them. That's what I'm talking about.

The people that push for it are the people that won't be affected or will be affected the least. But MANY people will be hurt, devastated or wiped out. It may not happen right away but it would happen and the outward ripple would be huge. (In AMHR but mostly in AMHA)I was trying to make people think. Because it may not happen to you, doesn't mean it won't happen to other people. I care not only for myself, I also care about everyone who love these special smaller equine.

I'm not speaking against people, I'm trying to make people think.

You can't think only of "let's do this" you also need to think of "what will happen in the long run IF we do this?"

Do this without raising the height to allow for the withers, you devastate many people and horses. Do it and allow for the withers (raise height) the horses did not magically get taller!

You never see me speaking "in public" this way. I'm shy and it scares me. But this time I had to speak.

 

[R3]

If the height is increased by 2 inches, it DOES ultimately increase the size of the horses in the registry. The reason has been stated before, earlier in this topic, but probably lost in all of these pages...

"...even though an INDIVIDUAL horse won’t actually be any taller when you measure it from the TOTW, on a collective level, you do risk raising the overall height of horses being registered in an organization by raising the allowed height of the registry, even when changing the measuring point. This is because most likely they will want to raise the limit by enough to take in ALL the currently registered horses. Some will only be a half inch taller; others may be as much as two inches taller. So, where do you decide where the new limit will be? Do you raise it by the ‘average’ amount, or the upper amount? If you go with the ‘average’, you will have a significant number of horses who will lose their papers. If you raise it by the upper limit, then you have raised it higher than the average, so are in effect allowing the overall height of the registry to increase."

 

[alphahorses]

If the height is increased by 2 inches, it DOES ultimately increase the size of the horses in the registry. The reason has been stated before, earlier in this topic, but probably lost in all of these pages...

"...even though an INDIVIDUAL horse won’t actually be any taller when you measure it from the TOTW, on a collective level, you do risk raising the overall height of horses being registered in an organization by raising the allowed height of the registry, even when changing the measuring point. This is because most likely they will want to raise the limit by enough to take in ALL the currently registered horses. Some will only be a half inch taller; others may be as much as two inches taller. So, where do you decide where the new limit will be? Do you raise it by the ‘average’ amount, or the upper amount? If you go with the ‘average’, you will have a significant number of horses who will lose their papers. If you raise it by the upper limit, then you have raised it higher than the average, so are in effect allowing the overall height of the registry to increase."

Someone made a proposal at the beginning this thread to use AMHR Nationals to mathematically determine how much the heights would have to be raised. It was a good idea.

But even if we were to raise it by 2" and it allowed more horses into the registery, how is that a bad thing? Smaller is not better in AMHR. It would bring more revenue to the registry and potentially increase revenue for shows. It does not make the miniature horse any less valuable. People are still going to purchase based on quality and how the animal fits into their personal goals.

 

[alphahorses]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the IDEA of measuring at the Top of the Withers (TOTW). Belinda showed us a proposal that is currently IN DRAFT FORM (not necessarily a ‘final’ version), and asked for feedback.

I might be off here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I know proposals can be amended before they go to the BOD after discussion at Convention, but I thought the proposals that will go to Convention had to be in "final" version by July 1?

 

[muffntuf]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the IDEA of measuring at the Top of the Withers (TOTW). Belinda showed us a proposal that is currently IN DRAFT FORM (not necessarily a ‘final’ version), and asked for feedback. This is our opportunity to state what we like or dislike about the idea, as presented, to ‘tweak’ what she has, to offer ideas that might be totally different, or to state that we want measuring to stay the same as it always has been and give our reasons why.

Actually it is not a draft. All proposal were due on July 1st to the appropriate committee. The author, if present (or if can be reached by phone), can amend the proposal at the time of discussion - but its not a draft at this point, it has been submitted.

Just to clarify.

 

[R3]

Thanks for the clarification. It works the same way in AMHA, once it has been officially submitted, only the person who wrote the proposal can change the wording.

I guess since Belinda submitted it, and is asking for comment, that she can still change it, so people's input on this topic can still make an impact on the final language.

In AMHR, can the language be changed during the Meeting, or is it like AMHA, that once the written proposal makes it to the floor at the Annual meeting for debate that no changes can be made before it is voted on?