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

[OhHorsePee]

dinno28, what a great fact filled post!

It is sad to even think how many horses/ponies this will effect in a negative way.

 

[muffntuf]

Thank you for taking the time to compile that information from one of the most influential farms in the United States. This totally supports my theory that this would in effect, hurt our registry as well as possibly leave thousands of B sized miniatures in the cold.

I cannot support either this proposed measurement or any other that would not include a height adjustment. And I cannot support a grandfathering clause as that would be too hard to figure out in 5 years who is covered and who is not. I can see a lot of interesting situations coming up with either proposal.

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

I decided to do a little research into horses measured as a shetland (totw) and as an AMHR miniature (LMH). Information was gathered from the Sale of the Century listing link and can be viewed at http://www.whirlwindproduction.com/auction/century/

20 animals were measured as both a miniature and as a shetland by AMHR/ASPC President Larry Parnell. Measurements were in full view of the public and webcast live online, Several board members were also in attendance. The largest difference in measurement was 3 inches

(lot 1 Wall Street Rock E The Rock totw- 40.25, lmh-37.25, and lot #20 Wall Street Rock E Rock on totw-41", lmh-38")and the smallest difference in measurement was .75" (lot #38 Wall Street Rock E Rock on Lisa E totw-38", lmh-37.25").

Of the 20 animals legally measured and eligible for AMHR registration only 5 would measure 38 or under if the proposed charge were to go into effect. The average ASPC measurement was 39.0375(totw) and the average AMHR measurement was 37.425(lmh) with an average difference of 1.6125".

horses/ponies are listed below with the first measurement being top of the withers and second measurement being the last mane hair:

lot 1 Wall Street ROck E The Rock 40.25" totw, 37.25" lmh

lot 5 Michigan's Distinct Image 39.5" totw, 38" lmh

lot 6 Wall Street Navigator's First Shot 37" totw, 35.25" lmh

lot 8 Wall Street Rock E Red Red Hot 39" totw, 37.75" lmh

lot 9 Red Rock Kids Sweet Tooth 39.5" totw, 38" lmh

lot 20 Wall Street Rock E Rock On 41" totw, 38" lmh

lot 23 Wall Street Illsions Rainy Day 39.75" totw, 38" lmh

lot 31 Wall Street Illusion's Onyx 39.5" totw, 38" lmh

lot 35 Colorful Miss Wiser 38" totw, 36.75" lmh

lot 37 Wa-Full Betty Boop 38" totw, 36.25" lmh

lot 38 Wall Street Rock E Rock on Lisa E 38" totw, 37.25" lmh

lot 42 Rhapsody's Merry Madonna 39.5" totw, 37.75" lmh

lot 44 Rhapsody In Red 39" totw, 37.25" lmh

lot 47 Wall Street Rock E Rockstar 38.5" totw, 37.5" lmh

lot 50 Rhapsody's Bound For Glory 39.25" totw, 38" lmh

lot 61 Vermilyea Farms Good as Gold 38" totw, 37" lmh

lot 65 Mccalls Lucky Lady Cody 39.25" totw, 37" lmh

lot 75 Wall Street Head's Up Phantom 39.5" totw, 38" lmh

lot 84 Wall Street Rock E Harryetta Potter 39" totw, 37.5" lmh

lot 87 Wall Street Illusion Chrystal Charmed 39.5" totw, 37.5" lmh

Unless there is an adjustment to our current height divisions (ie 36"-40" for the over division, and 36" and under for the under division) I cannot support this proposal. From this sample we would we would be shrinking the average miniature height by 1.6"

At a time when our registry is operating in the red and new registrations are significantly down. Passing a proposal that would strongly discourage the breeding of mares and stallions that currently legally measure 36.5"-38" can not be seen as fiscally responsible. Not to mention the reduction in the genetic pool.

What an awesome idea- that's very interesting!

Now, I did an informal measurement of all my Minis yesterday (over 30 of them!) and this morning. It wasn't as "accurate" as a show/sale measurement, I just wanted to get a general idea. All of the "purebred" Minis measured between 3/4 and 1" taller at the withers. All of the ASPC/AMHR Minis measured about 1.5" tall at the withers. I would have several B only minis measure out.

So I couldn't support this rule change either, unless they raise the height limits.

But I would get one advantage if they would raise the limits- my show gelding is right over 34" tall. If they raise the limit to 36", he would become an A- as it is he is normally the smallest horse in his classes.

Lucy

 

[~Lisa~]

I am a bit confused on one thing.. I keep hearing talk of bringing more blood into the minis more new blood.. isnt the ASPC gene pool MUCH smaller then the mini one?

 

[muffntuf]

I think that is off topic for this measurement proposal thread.

 

[txminipinto]

I am a bit confused on one thing.. I keep hearing talk of bringing more blood into the minis more new blood.. isnt the ASPC gene pool MUCH smaller then the mini one?

Don't confuse registration numbers with genetics. The miniature horse has been inbred profusely, shrinking its gene pool. The shetland has been outcrossed expanding its genetics. While there are definitely more miniatures in the world than shetlands, the shetlands have a much larger gene pool which is why you see less deformaties.

 

[OhHorsePee]

I am a bit confused on one thing.. I keep hearing talk of bringing more blood into the minis more new blood.. isnt the ASPC gene pool MUCH smaller then the mini one?

I think that is off topic for this measurement proposal thread.

I agree off topic! Please let's try to keep this germane to what this thread is all about and not bait a battle.

 

[~Lisa~]

I think that is off topic for this measurement proposal thread.

Why thank you for that Trace and Fran.. Was mearly asking a question of a statement that was posted on this thread about how much new blood ASPC is bringing into the minis. by Dinno28 whose post you all addressed

Not to mention the reduction in the genetic pool.

So was not really taking it off topic as it was put on THIS TOPIC by someone else....

.. But thank you to the two of you for once again reminding me... .....LOVE AND LIGHT

 

[Capall Beag IRL]

height is the easiest thing to correct in your breeding programme, bad genetics is much harder to fix

i believe that people have to have more respect for your type of mini whether its 30" or 36" we dont all like what other

people breed but thats just your own opinion,

what will happen when the AMHR and ASPC inter breed? what will that horse be called? and then what will happen when

they breed with AMHA horses?

next time i import any horses they will be ASPC but no doubt i will get it in the neck for bringing in SHETLANDS

which is to the BIGGEST insult that goes around over here

 

[hobbyhorse23]

I think we've got to decide if we want to be FAIR to everyone, or if we want to improve the breed. SOME people here have clearly stated that they believe BIGGER IS BETTER. I DISAGREE! Have any of you read the book, Justin Morgan Had A Horse? The original Morgan horse was considered a runt and a cull by almost everyone except Justin Morgan. He eventually prooved he could out work, out pull, out ride, and out produce much larger horses. I am not going to sit back and accept that bigger is better.

I actually agree with the rest of this post about being fair to everyone or improving the breed, but I raised an eyebrow over the Justin Morgan comparison. Really?? The whole point of that story is that pretty is as pretty does, and I don't see a whole lot of the tinies "out-pulling, out-working, or out-trotting" their larger counterparts!

I don't want "bigger," personally, but I do want "big enough." There's a difference. And to each their own anyway!

Except that is just NOT true! Without raising the height limit, there will be horses KICKED OUT! Not the current horses, but many current breeding stock horses will undoubtedly produce foals and stock that WILL go over.

You can't kick out a horse who was never registered in the first place.

And, again with out raising the height, my 33" LHOTM show horse would be worth much less in my eyes. Sure, she could keep showing as an "A", but likely her foals would go over, and no body wants a horse that is just over into another division.

I feel sort of sorry for your horse, Des.

So her only value to you is in how much she can win? I thought your horses meant more to you than that! What about Midnight and your other non-show horses? And for many of us a 35-36" horse is perfect as they have more power than the A's with a longer stride but don't seem so much like ponies as the larger B's. I like the ponies but if I want one, I'll buy a Welsh.

I have a AMHR only mare that is around 37-38" LHOTM who is being bred to a 38" LHOTM stallion. I have spent over $4000 on this breeding... for what a GRADE horse?! That is just plain ridiculous and I would be devastated if that were the case.

No offense, but you're already risking having a grade horse just by breeding two horses at the top of the current height range. I understand your feelings on this but let's be realistic...it's a risk we take.

Leia (who knows she should have bitten her tongue but couldn't)

 

[disneyhorse]

So... your 34" last-hair-of-the-mane horse measures 35" at the withers and is now and "over"... but the horse itself didn't grow... so who cares what it's CALLED? The horse is still the same quality horse, right?

Andrea

 

[REO]

I'm against changing the measuring at all, but if it changes, then I'm against not adding to it. I'm not trying to argue or stir up anything. I just can't get through my head how adding a WITHERS ALLOWANCE will let even bigger horses in. As seen in the above posts, adding a withers allowance for them, would be just adding a withers allowance.

If all of this is because measuring at the top of the withers is supposed to be the "BE ALL-END ALL" of accurate measuring then.............

If a mutton withered horse and a tall withered horse measure EXACLY the same at the top of the withers, how is one bigger than the other?

I hope enough people can go and vote this down.

If a horse that's measured into a show at the last mane hair can be spraddled out to measure in, so can one that's measured at the top of the withers. IMO the answer isn't changing where minis have been measured for 30 years, it's cracking down on cheaters at shows WHEN they're measured.

I still say if all this energy was directed towards cracking down on horses measured in at shows (no bullies allowed) then problem solved.

It's fine if you don't understand what I'm saying or you don't agree. But I'm being true to myself in sharing my thoughts on this, like everyone else.

 

[txminipinto]

height is the easiest thing to correct in your breeding programme, bad genetics is much harder to fix

i believe that people have to have more respect for your type of mini whether its 30" or 36" we dont all like what other

people breed but thats just your own opinion,

what will happen when the AMHR and ASPC inter breed? what will that horse be called? and then what will happen when

they breed with AMHA horses?

next time i import any horses they will be ASPC but no doubt i will get it in the neck for bringing in SHETLANDS

which is to the BIGGEST insult that goes around over here

In this entire conversation the only PUREBREED, RECOGNIZED BREED is the ASPC shetland. AMHR and AMHA minis are still considered a HEIGHT breed.

If you cross AMHR X ASPC or AMHA X ASPC, you will have a half shetland and/or a AMHR or AMHA mini....provided of course that the ASPC had a set of AMHR or AMHA papers. The resulting foal would not have ASPC papers though. ALL of this is ALREADY HAPPENING!!!

To deny that the ASPC had any influence on todays "purebred" AMHA or AMHR minis is ridiculous and sticking your head in the sand.

I am sorry to hear that bringing in shetlands is in an insult. Perhaps, you might want to consider watching the shetland Congress online in a few weeks to get an education on the value and refined beauty of the animal that is so snubbed around the world.

Ok, done with this topic.

 

[Minimor]

Carin, the sad truth is, Shetlands do seem to offend many people. I don't know what it is, but it's as if "shetland" is a dirty word for some.

next time I import any horses they will be ASPC but no doubt i will get it in the neck for bringing in SHETLANDS which is to the BIGGEST insult that goes around over here

You know what, if you like the Shetlands and you want to import an ASPC pony (or two or three of them!) you just do it, and never mind what others around you will say about them. Because if you pick some nice ones, and you bring them in and then promote them--even if there aren't any shows that offer ASPC classes, if you can take them out to some exhibitions and put them in open classes, or just give demos with them, or just plain show them to people that come to your place to see your horses, you will find that they get a lot of attention. Many people will be surprised at what they look like--you will get people saying I'VE NEVER SEEN SHETLANDS THAT LOOK LIKE THAT BEFORE or THOSE ARE THE BEST LOOKING SHETLANDS I'VE EVER SEEN, and you will find that your ponies have quite a following!! Never mind those that would put your ponies down just because they are ponies--yes, for many people "pony" is a dirty word. People will talk and complain behind your back. If you point blank ask those people what their problem with ponies is, they probably won't be able to tell you, or at least they won't tell you--they'll just deny that they have any problem! The ponies are beautiful creatures--watch out, because if you get one of them you just might find that you are suddenly hooked on ponies!!

And yes, I speak from experience!!

 

[Gypsygal]

My understanding is that the proposal is for the base of the withers - not the top of the withers. Which personally I think is as arbitrary as last hair on the main. Does anyone have the actual proposal? If I missed it somewhere in this 26 pages I am sorry.

 

[Magic]

My understanding is that the proposal is for the base of the withers - not the top of the withers. Which personally I think is as arbitrary as last hair on the main. Does anyone have the actual proposal? If I missed it somewhere in this 26 pages I am sorry.

There are TWO proposals; one for measuring at the base of the withers and one for measuring at the top of the withers.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Carin, the sad truth is, Shetlands do seem to offend many people. I don't know what it is, but it's as if "shetland" is a dirty word for some.

You know what, if you like the Shetlands and you want to import an ASPC pony (or two or three of them!) you just do it, and never mind what others around you will say about them. Because if you pick some nice ones, and you bring them in and then promote them--even if there aren't any shows that offer ASPC classes, if you can take them out to some exhibitions and put them in open classes, or just give demos with them, or just plain show them to people that come to your place to see your horses, you will find that they get a lot of attention. Many people will be surprised at what they look like--you will get people saying I'VE NEVER SEEN SHETLANDS THAT LOOK LIKE THAT BEFORE or THOSE ARE THE BEST LOOKING SHETLANDS I'VE EVER SEEN, and you will find that your ponies have quite a following!! Never mind those that would put your ponies down just because they are ponies--yes, for many people "pony" is a dirty word. People will talk and complain behind your back. If you point blank ask those people what their problem with ponies is, they probably won't be able to tell you, or at least they won't tell you--they'll just deny that they have any problem! The ponies are beautiful creatures--watch out, because if you get one of them you just might find that you are suddenly hooked on ponies!!

And yes, I speak from experience!!

I am proud to say that my farm is now shetlands and show ponies. For years I was duped into not getting a shetland. Yes, I still have a mini, but after the last time I went to nationals, I was disgusted to watch a grown woman cry (I mean bawl like a child) because those "dxxm" shetlands were winning everything.

Come on, the best conformationally correct horse did win. A lot were shetland crosses, but some were just better bred minis. I ended up getting into a couple heated debates that the association was a height registry.

But I have now gotten into the saddlebred and hackney shows and I receive a lot more respect having shetlands than minis. Just a couple of days ago I was being introduced and a friend announced that I had minis and there was a lot of chuckling. I quickly corrected him that I had shetlands and all of a sudden, the chuckling stopped and there were people asking questions and several wanted to come see my shetlands.

I ran the Stateline Tack at Petsmart and when I would mention I had minis, usually the response was "ahn how cute" or "that's nice". But to each their own.

 

[MiniFriend]

Hello, I wanted to post my thoughts on this subject…

I think measuring at the withers is better than the current method because:

-it is the highest stable point

-eliminates cheating of "extending" the mane to get a shorter horse measurement

-new mini owners with horse experience are used to measuring at the withers

-it is a universally accepted way to measure

-it gives miniature horses a true height comparision to aspc ponies and other breeds

Regarding the last point,

When we call our amhr horses "miniature" …that raises the question of "miniature in height compared to what" ? Amhr is part of aspc ( and shetlands are the smallest of the pony breeds). Are amhr B horses currently "miniature" in size compared to the smallest class of aspc ponies?

At aspc shows, the Foundation/Classic Under Shetlands are only up to a maximum height of 42 inches measured at the wither.

Many have said that in order to compete successfully in the amhr B division, they breed for "just under" the maximum amhr height.

Currently, many aspc ponies up to 40 - 40.5 inches measured at the wither, will hardship amhr. At the Rock E sale, the stallion " Rock On" measured 41 inches at the wither and 38 inches mini, I believe. Many aspc/amhr compete successfully in Foundation/Classic Under Shetland classes and vice versa. Previous posts have listed the height comparisions of the two methods of measuring.

Looking at these numbers, I currently don't see enough significant difference " height wise" between these two groups ( amhr B and foundation/under classic shetland) at the present time to justify the one group being called "miniature" while the other group not.

I am intriqued with the amhr B division, but to compete I must essentially buy ones similar in height to the unpapered shetland mare & gelding ( 10 hh and 10.2 hh) that we rode (years ago) when I was eleven. In height comparison, that makes me feel foolish calling Amhr B miniatures "miniatures" especially if I have to explain it.

Btw, I think today's shetlands are wonderful, and I am sure that aspc is fun. I loved watching the Rock E sale. I can understand why people choose aspc ponies ! It is an option that is out there.

For me, it is the "miniature" aspect that draws me to miniature horses. The idea of them being (as a whole group) smaller than any other horse or pony breed…and the challenge of breeding great horses within the height limits that define miniature horses as "miniature in size". I like that amhr has the A & B ( or "under" and "over" divisons) and am interested in both. For Amhr to stay at least somewhat "miniature" in size, I think that a height limit of 39 inches for the B division, measured at the wither, should be the absolute maximum. If 38 inches at the wither is voted in, then I will live with that height limit. The maximum height for the foundation/classic under shetlands is only 42 inches, measured at the wither...so in comparision that makes sense numberwise that there be 4 inches difference between an Amhr B Miniature maximum height and the foundation/classic under shetland maximum height. However, choosing a maximum of 39 inches, at the wither for Amhr, may end up being the comprimise, as it allows another inch of height for driving compared to 38 maximum. A height limit of 40 inches doesn't sound "miniature" to me at all. Nor does 10 hh. And 39 "sounds" a lot smaller than 40 (when I have to explain miniatures to someone or justify the name to myself). I can get my head around miniature horses being up to 39 inches, but not 40 inches. Also, if amhr B miniatures are up to 40 inches at the wither then they are only 2 inches smaller than foundation/under classic shetlands who are up to 42 inches...and that is pretty much the current situation...just "spelling it out" more clearly by using wither measurement.

I do not believe that grandfathered horses would drastically lose value, if they are of excellent confirmation. They can be shown. They can be bred to a horse that is much smaller in height to produce foals within the height limit. That kind of breeding is already done now to reduce size on foals for whatever reason.

I think this proposal has started an important discussion about measuring and height. I also understand the many important concerns that are being expressed on this thread. Change is never easy for sure. Worry is worse. I hope more people post that haven't said anything yet. I had to get up my nerve to do so !

 

[wpsellwood]

I havent read the entire post boy how did it get so many pages since the last time I read it!! It truly doesnt matter which way it goes if any, I just think in my own mind and just my opinion it would be much more fair at the base of withers. You can slide down that wither, but when you are at the base you are at the bottom. Of couse we still have stretching and all that goes on. But I think you elimate alot of room for error at the bottom.

 

[wildoak]

Whew, it's late, I've been out of town and just catching up on this. My brain gave out at about page 17 LOL, but I think Kim's post there was right to the point. I also have long favored the addition of a breedstock only division, but that's another topic. I'm not opposed to changing the place of measurement although it won't erase all of the problems with being a height based registry, but I am opposed to disallowing a significant group of horses who currently approach the upper B limits and would then become oversize. Not all would be eligible for Shetland registry, and not all who show AMHR would be able and/or willing to add another set of shows to their schedule. I have nothing against Shetlands, I've been really wowed by some in the last few years, it's just not where I've gone with my horses.

Jan