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

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I hate that anything to do with measuring invariably turns into "us against them" "Shetland vs Miniature" "A breeders vs B breeders"

This will do none of us any good at all. This issue cuts across all of that no matter what the horse is registered or what size you breed for. And to be real honest its going to affect AMHR only horses more then any other. I hate to see that happen. We did lose quite a few members when the hardship rule went into affect too quickly. Memberships are down so we dont need anything rocking the boat right now.

This will not solve measuring problems.

Honestly at this point I just see a whole lot of cons and not any pros. The only pro I can think of is it will make it easier for Breeders in Europe but it wont solve the problem of horses being imported over there that are over 34". Bottom line is cheaters are cheaters and just changing where you measure wont make them suddenly honest.

I thought about this a lot last night (since I was up all night LOL) and really who cares what other associations say about how we measure?
 
Carin I do agree with you on that point and would hope that if the rule does pass it would not be considered extraordinary and give people time

No matter how we measure I have said before the key is ENFORCING that measurement- truly "punishing" those stewards who over and over again allow larger horses into the breed or the show ring and infact changing the way we allow height protests to happen.

IMO all heights should be posted at the show and any member should be able to protest a height. I think if it were more open then yes perhaps the 100 dollar bills would fly at first but I do think if it was open and available to anyone hopefully those who blatenly cheat will think twice.

Yes a horse can measure 37.50 one show- 38.00 the next and 38.50 the next as how we measure is not a science.. but when you are getting up into the 39.00 or 40.00 or for the under horses 35.00 or 36.00 there is a problem a huge problem where will it stop? Every year the line gets pushed farther and farther before you know it.. we will have 13 hand ponies in the show ring LOL
 
Amen, to the last two posts.(edited -this is going way to fast ...Last 2 post referring to Stormy and Txminipinto) Stormy, you made the point much better than what I've been saying.

.......

.........

I also don't believe that somehow magically large horse breeders are going to accept the miniature any more then they do now because we decide to measure at the withers. Having measured 4H ponies for years believe me people did all kinds of things to get their horses measured in as ponies and measuring at the withers will not change that.

...............................

I do want to add though that I agree if this is implemented it should not be implemented overnight but over a number of years, horses born before a certain date would still be measured at the last hair and no horse born before that date would lose there papers or breeding privelages...would be tricky in the show ring for a while during the change over.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pros: Our horses would be measured like all equine including the ASPC registry. This is a benefit regarding our overseas markets as well.

Cons: The biggest negative I see is the confusion of how "grandfathered" horses are measured and the size differences that will be present in the show ring for the next 20 years.

However, I am NOT in favor of raising the height limits. Not all, but most of the current 37-38" minis are double-registered ASPC. This means that they can still show in the appropriate ASPC division. Currently in ASPC there are Over and Under Divisions similar to AMHR. Maybe ASPC could divide it's Under division into 40" and Under, and 40-42"?

I'm not sure what the answer is. I like the idea of measuring at the withers, but I don't like the grandfathering or raising the height limit clauses. Unfortunately, that leaves me personally with some potentially big changes to my program!
I am very agreeable with changing measuring to the withers but I don't like the idea of no grandfathering or raising the limit. I for one do not have ASPC double registered Minis but rather "pure" Minis and I breed for B size for driving. A lot of my horses push the 37 to 38" height and would no doubt measure over 38" at the withers. I paid good money for these REGISTERED horses. Who would compensate me for my losses if there were no grandfathering? Perhaps grandfathering with no showing for those over the 38" limit? They could be kept as registered breeding stock only. The only problem with that solution would be that geldings are not breeding stock. Perhaps a special class/es at the shows for grandfathered geldings over the 38" limit?
 
Myself, I am wondering what the rationale behind this proposal is. It seems from many of the posts that many think that by changing to measuring at the top of the withers we will either (a) magically gain more respect from the rest of the horse world; and/or (b) solve all of our current measuring problems. Well, actually, neither will occur.

First, in my experience, it is not the location at which we measure our horses that prompts a lack of respect from “big-horse” people, it is the huge perception that still exists that minis are useless little Thelwell ponies with horrible conformation, and oh yeah, what do you DO with them. I have had my minis many times at both the Calgary Stampede (there is no bigger congregation of Western horsepeople anywhere in North America with cutting, reining, cattle penning, rodeo and heavy horse exhibitors - and more - all there at once) and at Spruce Meadows (ditto for the show jumping side of things). The number one comment I get from the big-horse people when they see my horses is: “He looks like a HORSE”. I cannot EVER remember someone making a comment about the place at which we measure our horses and using that as a basis to discredit the minis. Big horse people as a whole still tend not to realize that minis CAN have good conformation and also CAN do useful things like drive. Our organizations are making great strides in combating this perception, but there is still a long way to go.

If measuring is changed to the highest point at the wither (and yes, I am well aware that every other breed of horse measures here) and the height limits of 34 & 38 are not changed along with the measuring location, then what you are effectively doing is lowering the height limit of minis – and in turn making them less useful as driving and performance prospects. Big horse people LIKE performance prospects, which is why they have horses. They like to DO things with their horses. Changing to measuring at the wither without in turn increasing the height limit of minis is NOT going to make more big horse people magically respect minis more, in fact it will ultimately have the opposite effect as the quality of the breed as performance horses will decrease due to the breed becoming shorter.

If you change the measuring system to top of the wither, you are doing one or both of two things: (a) lowering the height limit of the registry – a HUGE move, and one that shouldn’t be undertaken lightly, especially if the proposed date is only next year, and (b) encouraging the breeding of mutton withered horses. In my experience, Miniatures with actual withers like big horses have tend to be the best movers and most athletic. Why would we want to encourage people not to breed these horses anymore? To me that’s taking a step back in time about 20 years!

Horse A that is 34 inches at the last hair of the mane and is, say, 35.25 inches at the wither is STILL the same size horse no matter where you measure or how tall you call him. If you lower the height limit to 34 or 38 inches at the wither you are definitely going to stop the breeding of a huge proportion of the most “useful” horses – i.e. those that have the best movement and the best conformation. Now before anyone jumps on me and says that thier 30 inch mini has great movement and wonderful conformation, I’m sure that is true, but realistically, it is hard to quarrel with the fact that most of the best movers and best conformed horses are near the top of the height limits, one has only to compare a 32 & under driving class with a 32-34 inch driving class to figure that out. Yes, of course there are 32 & under horses that can move just as well or in some cases even better than those approaching 34, but the depth of quality is just not there yet with the smaller ones. And it would also be interesting to look at whether these well moving horses that currently fit into the 32 & under division are high-withered and would end up measuring over 34 with this new system. Something tells me many would.

So the way I see it, if your goal is to gain respect from big horse people, making minis less useful by decreasing the size limit is NOT the way to go about doing it - encouraging geldings and promoting the performance potential of miniatures IS, and this just can’t/won’t happen if you get rid of so many of the best moving horses that are big enough and strong enough for a heavy adult to drive.

Finally, measuring at the top of the withers is NOT going to suddenly solve our measuring issues. Although I am not involved in hunter ponies so can’t speak from personal experience, what I have heard is that the same sort of “tricks” designed to “shrink” horses happen when measuring at the top of the withers, and a quick google search informs me that sedation, changing head height, exercise, splaying front legs, etc. etc. etc. (all the same things that mini exhibitors do) are implemented by pony exhibitors to measure their horse in. I hope someone has considered this and thoroughly researched it.

I’m interested in WHY this change has been proposed, and if it’s so that respect can be gained among big horse people, tell me why you think this is a better way than promoting minis as performance animals that you can actually DO something with? I just don’t see the rationale behind a move to measuring at the top of the withers unless the allowable height limits are also increased because what it really means is lowering the height limit of the Miniature Horse, which decreases its performance capabilities.

Also, it’s the prevailing attitude here of “oh, just get another horse” and "change your breeding program" that is bothering me. Lots of people already have their show horses that would measure out under this new system. They’ve invested time and money in these horses, and it’s not so easy (nor would they want to) to just replace these borderline horses that may now measure out. It would be easy for the big breeder to adapt to such a change, but for the bread and butter of the registry, the so called “little people”, the youth and amateurs that do not breed for 10 or 20+ foals per year but rather enjoy their minis by showing them and maybe having one or two foals per year, this change would be catastrophic. From my own perspective, I have 3 horses that would not measure in under the new system. Who is going to reimburse me for the time and money I have spent on them? Not to mention that I have a huge emotional attachment to my beloved friends. No, I am not a breeder, but if you alienate people like me (and trust me, there are many of us), what does that do for the future of the industry?
 
I’m interested in WHY this change has been proposed, and if it’s so that respect can be gained among big horse people, tell me why you think this is a better way than promoting minis as performance animals that you can actually DO something with? I just don’t see the rationale behind a move to measuring at the top of the withers unless the allowable height limits are also increased because what it really means is lowering the height limit of the Miniature Horse, which decreases its performance capabilities.
Also, it’s the prevailing attitude here of “oh, just get another horse” and "change your breeding program" that is bothering me. Lots of people already have their show horses that would measure out under this new system. They’ve invested time and money in these horses, and it’s not so easy (nor would they want to) to just replace these borderline horses that may now measure out. It would be easy for the big breeder to adapt to such a change, but for the bread and butter of the registry, the so called “little people”, the youth and amateurs that do not breed for 10 or 20+ foals per year but rather enjoy their minis by showing them and maybe having one or two foals per year, this change would be catastrophic. From my own perspective, I have 3 horses that would not measure in under the new system. Who is going to reimburse me for the time and money I have spent on them? Not to mention that I have a huge emotional attachment to my beloved friends. No, I am not a breeder, but if you alienate people like me (and trust me, there are many of us), what does that do for the future of the industry?

default_aktion033.gif
:yeah
default_aktion033.gif
 
Some thoughts – perhaps in the future an approach that would be helpful (and cause less anxiety, high emotions and confusion) for this type of significant proposal would be to include at the time of posting more comprehensive and detailed information such as:

· The issue(s)/concern(s) and/or benefit(s) that the proposal is intending to remedy

· The proposal language

· The name(s) of the individual(s) proposing the change

· A detail of both the short term and long term concerns/ramifications as well as any potential/suspected unintended consequences that may result from the proposal and how (if possible) the concern(s) can or should be addressed.

· The potential financial impact to the organization and/or the potential financial impact to individual members.

(for this particular proposal, it would be very helpful to help understand any disparate impact as well as the potential impact to the club and club members to list the horse height statistics by size of the number of horses currently permanently registered with AMHR –say from ages 3 to 25 – and 28 to 38 inches as the data will help indicate impact)

Then post all of the information above at the same time and ask the members of the forum for critical feedback especially regarding any concerns that may have been overlooked and to help determine overall support for the proposal.

For example – it appears that perhaps an unintended consequence (given that the majority of all horses will measure taller at the withers than at the last hair of the mane) is that this proposal as written and implemented will actually reduce the future height of the breed (non grandfathered group) – Today’s AMHR miniature horse has a maximum height at the last hair of 38 and in the future the height will be from approximately 35 ½ to 37 last hair of the mane (depending on the wither size of the particular horse) and thus each current height will be reduced accordingly with the maximum height most significantly impacted.

In four years, a true (non-grandfathered) 34 inch AMHA/AMHR miniature (measured at the last hair of the mane) that has any withers at all will become a B or oversize miniature from a show and registration perspective. (Also one needs to consider that for AMHA to implement measuring at the withers, they would have to also reduce the height of the 34/33 inch miniatures by ½ to 2 inches – and I recall from the AMHA marketing survey that was conducted a few years ago – more AMHA miniatures were registered that measured 33 to 34 than any other height category).

Also consider, that in many regions, it is not unusual to have joint AMHA and AMHR shows back to back on the same weekend. So imagine in the future the AMHA 34 and under miniature that shows on a Saturday then on Sunday is measured in at 35 at the AMHR show and is now a B division/oversize show miniature (it seems that the stewards may have some interesting discussions during the measurement sessions in this example) or perhaps the exhibitor may decide to simply not show in the AMHR show as an oversize miniature.

After reading through the many pages of this post, it appears this change is being made primarily to correct the current issues with measuring at the last hair – Just speaking from personal experience, we have experienced and witnessed as much variation in having ponies measured at the top of the withers as we have with last hair of the mane miniature measurements. Thus perhaps the primary focus should be to address the real root issue - correcting the current measuring concerns that have been discussed year after year.
 
Myself, I am wondering what the rationale behind this proposal is. It seems from many of the posts that many think that by changing to measuring at the top of the withers we will either (a) magically gain more respect from the rest of the horse world; and/or (b) solve all of our current measuring problems. Well, actually, neither will occur.

First, in my experience, it is not the location at which we measure our horses that prompts a lack of respect from "big-horse" people, it is the huge perception that still exists that minis are useless little Thelwell ponies with horrible conformation, and oh yeah, what do you DO with them. I have had my minis many times at both the Calgary Stampede (there is no bigger congregation of Western horsepeople anywhere in North America with cutting, reining, cattle penning, rodeo and heavy horse exhibitors - and more - all there at once) and at Spruce Meadows (ditto for the show jumping side of things). The number one comment I get from the big-horse people when they see my horses is: "He looks like a HORSE". I cannot EVER remember someone making a comment about the place at which we measure our horses and using that as a basis to discredit the minis. Big horse people as a whole still tend not to realize that minis CAN have good conformation and also CAN do useful things like drive. Our organizations are making great strides in combating this perception, but there is still a long way to go.

If measuring is changed to the highest point at the wither (and yes, I am well aware that every other breed of horse measures here) and the height limits of 34 & 38 are not changed along with the measuring location, then what you are effectively doing is lowering the height limit of minis – and in turn making them less useful as driving and performance prospects. Big horse people LIKE performance prospects, which is why they have horses. They like to DO things with their horses. Changing to measuring at the wither without in turn increasing the height limit of minis is NOT going to make more big horse people magically respect minis more, in fact it will ultimately have the opposite effect as the quality of the breed as performance horses will decrease due to the breed becoming shorter.

If you change the measuring system to top of the wither, you are doing one or both of two things: (a) lowering the height limit of the registry – a HUGE move, and one that shouldn't be undertaken lightly, especially if the proposed date is only next year, and (b) encouraging the breeding of mutton withered horses. In my experience, Miniatures with actual withers like big horses have tend to be the best movers and most athletic. Why would we want to encourage people not to breed these horses anymore? To me that's taking a step back in time about 20 years!

Horse A that is 34 inches at the last hair of the mane and is, say, 35.25 inches at the wither is STILL the same size horse no matter where you measure or how tall you call him. If you lower the height limit to 34 or 38 inches at the wither you are definitely going to stop the breeding of a huge proportion of the most "useful" horses – i.e. those that have the best movement and the best conformation. Now before anyone jumps on me and says that thier 30 inch mini has great movement and wonderful conformation, I'm sure that is true, but realistically, it is hard to quarrel with the fact that most of the best movers and best conformed horses are near the top of the height limits, one has only to compare a 32 & under driving class with a 32-34 inch driving class to figure that out. Yes, of course there are 32 & under horses that can move just as well or in some cases even better than those approaching 34, but the depth of quality is just not there yet with the smaller ones. And it would also be interesting to look at whether these well moving horses that currently fit into the 32 & under division are high-withered and would end up measuring over 34 with this new system. Something tells me many would.

So the way I see it, if your goal is to gain respect from big horse people, making minis less useful by decreasing the size limit is NOT the way to go about doing it - encouraging geldings and promoting the performance potential of miniatures IS, and this just can't/won't happen if you get rid of so many of the best moving horses that are big enough and strong enough for a heavy adult to drive.

Finally, measuring at the top of the withers is NOT going to suddenly solve our measuring issues. Although I am not involved in hunter ponies so can't speak from personal experience, what I have heard is that the same sort of "tricks" designed to "shrink" horses happen when measuring at the top of the withers, and a quick google search informs me that sedation, changing head height, exercise, splaying front legs, etc. etc. etc. (all the same things that mini exhibitors do) are implemented by pony exhibitors to measure their horse in. I hope someone has considered this and thoroughly researched it.

I'm interested in WHY this change has been proposed, and if it's so that respect can be gained among big horse people, tell me why you think this is a better way than promoting minis as performance animals that you can actually DO something with? I just don't see the rationale behind a move to measuring at the top of the withers unless the allowable height limits are also increased because what it really means is lowering the height limit of the Miniature Horse, which decreases its performance capabilities.

Also, it's the prevailing attitude here of "oh, just get another horse" and "change your breeding program" that is bothering me. Lots of people already have their show horses that would measure out under this new system. They've invested time and money in these horses, and it's not so easy (nor would they want to) to just replace these borderline horses that may now measure out. It would be easy for the big breeder to adapt to such a change, but for the bread and butter of the registry, the so called "little people", the youth and amateurs that do not breed for 10 or 20+ foals per year but rather enjoy their minis by showing them and maybe having one or two foals per year, this change would be catastrophic. From my own perspective, I have 3 horses that would not measure in under the new system. Who is going to reimburse me for the time and money I have spent on them? Not to mention that I have a huge emotional attachment to my beloved friends. No, I am not a breeder, but if you alienate people like me (and trust me, there are many of us), what does that do for the future of the industry?
Amen!!!! I am in total agreement, could not have said it better my self!
 
I am very agreeable with changing measuring to the withers but I don't like the idea of no grandfathering or raising the limit. I for one do not have ASPC double registered Minis but rather "pure" Minis and I breed for B size for driving. A lot of my horses push the 37 to 38" height and would no doubt measure over 38" at the withers. I paid good money for these REGISTERED horses. Who would compensate me for my losses if there were no grandfathering? Perhaps grandfathering with no showing for those over the 38" limit? They could be kept as registered breeding stock only. The only problem with that solution would be that geldings are not breeding stock. Perhaps a special class/es at the shows for grandfathered geldings over the 38" limit?

Agreed; I actually thought I would go measure random horses in the field here not all mine but this is what I found ; Try to tell me it's fair we all spent good money on these horses ..

LOTM 34.5 - Wither - 36.75 ( This was a yearling who would then not be able to show and currently he is a medium B yearling AMHR only)

LOTM 36.75 - Wither 38.5 (2 year old AMHR only filly half shetland)

LOTM 33.75 - Wither 35.75 (older style amhr only mare)

LOTM 36.75 - Wither - 39 ( ASPC/AMHR Stallion)

LOTM 36.5 - Wither - 38.25 (AMHR only mare showed in under 36 division at nationals last year to put into perpective what would be in your 36-38" class)

Its crazy to change it and not alter the heights these horses are all small not pushing their not even 37" and won't measure :s I know they'll be fine if they are allowed to breed still but now we can't breeding them is a risk

Also, it's the prevailing attitude here of "oh, just get another horse" and "change your breeding program" that is bothering me. Lots of people already have their show horses that would measure out under this new system. They've invested time and money in these horses, and it's not so easy (nor would they want to) to just replace these borderline horses that may now measure out. It would be easy for the big breeder to adapt to such a change, but for the bread and butter of the registry, the so called "little people", the youth and amateurs that do not breed for 10 or 20+ foals per year but rather enjoy their minis by showing them and maybe having one or two foals per year, this change would be catastrophic. From my own perspective, I have 3 horses that would not measure in under the new system. Who is going to reimburse me for the time and money I have spent on them? Not to mention that I have a huge emotional attachment to my beloved friends. No, I am not a breeder, but if you alienate people like me (and trust me, there are many of us), what does that do for the future of the industry?
And Kim Well Said ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Excellent excellent posts..... both Kim and Getitia!!

Susan O.
 
Wow, Kim!!! What a great post!!!!

Please everybody take your time to read it trough!
wink.gif


aktion033.gif
aktion033.gif
Thank you, Kim!
aktion033.gif
aktion033.gif
 
After reading through the many pages of this post, it appears this change is being made primarily to correct the current issues with measuring at the last hair – Just speaking from personal experience, we have experienced and witnessed as much variation in having ponies measured at the top of the withers as we have with last hair of the mane miniature measurements. Thus perhaps the primary focus should be to address the real root issue - correcting the current measuring concerns that have been discussed year after year.
And thats pretty much it in a nutshell. This WILL NOT solve measuring issues! Wont even come close. Lets address the real issue.

So far the only real pro to this is that other breeds will see we measure like they do. Not enough benefit to me to cause so many bad side affects of doing this. The bad definitely outweighs the good
 
Good Afternoon,

I have enjoyed reading all of the pros and cons of this subject matter...I would like to address one thing regarding the author of the proposal. As with ALL proposals with the ASPC/AMHR it is customary to post the proposal but leave off the name of the author until it is presented at convention. This allows all of us time to discuss it without repercussions to the author. I do know last year some proposals that I had presented were made public with my name before convention. I had tons of phone calls and emails and some that were not no nice. Everyone is entitled to submit a proposal without being ridiculed. When these proposals are presented during the committee meetings, then and only then can they be amended or altered, and only if the author is present. If not, then they are voted down. In this case, even though Belinda stepped forward and stated that this was her proposal that she presented on someone else behalf, until it is brought to the floor for all to vote on, then and only then can she change ANY part of this proposal. That is why she's asking now for any tweaking.

Yes, even on the ASPC/ASPR side there's still problems with some stewards measuring.....they are measuring up the neck not at the withers, as I have personally seen some do just that. Not always but it still happens. JMTCW.

Karen
 
I really do not care what other breed people think. We are who we are and they are whom they are. Being different is not a bad thing. It is no secret that BH people will always see miniature horses and ponies to be insignificant to them if that is how they feel before a proposal would change the measuring. Why are people trying to change who we are for them and mess with our own paying members wishes in a negative way???? Why change the whole way of measuring for all because some sell to overseas buyers and they measure differently over there? If you know they are going overseas then measure true at the withers for them when you quote the height.

I had to laugh to myself today while I was wondering how people would try to cheat with this proposal if it became a rule. I could see a market for wither prosthesis in some people's future.

Thank you Karen for explaining the process of a proposal. Sorry you were ridiculed in the manner that you were!! I am sure a new rule will come about so it can be changed now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't care what big horse people say. In all my years in minis, I've never had anyone say a thing about the way minis are measured. In fact, I was a big horse person coming into minis myself. And I never thought a thing about it. It doesn't bother me. IMO it's the minis SIZE, not the way they're measured that don't get respect from big horse people. What do you do with them? etc etc

I don't care if minis are measured from their nostrils to their dock, I just don't think people should be forced to tear down what they've built to satisfy some.

I'm sure I'll be torn apart for stating my views. But I hope people will think about what I say.

I'm SO against this, that I hate coming to the forum just because this topic is here, makes my chest hurt.

Is this whole thing coming up in AMHR because of the extra tall ponies showing at Nationals? Answer, just enforce the measuring rules, or just have the B size measure at the withers.

I don't belong to the "I got mine, so let everyone else fend for themselves" camp.

I'm thinking not about the B (38") size, but the 34" and under. Which is what I, and MANY others breed for.

YES there are some that breed for tiny, that is what they like and that's great. But what about people like me who spent a LOT of years and tons of $$ working hard to develop what they like, which is the 32"-34" size? The AMHR isn't *all* about the B size only.

People who say, well they'll just have to "adjust" their programs. Easy for them to say! Many people can't afford to just throw away everything they have and start over.

What happens when you upgrade your program?

You SELL off the ones you don't want, right? Someone else will buy them for their programs. No biggie.

Think about the BIG PICTURE.

If AMHR and then AMHA go to this without raising the 2" to allow for high withers...........

Years from now all those horses (1000's) that were legally under 34" before, are now too close to the limit or over and UNDESIRABLE. NO ONE will want to buy them. People "adjusting" their programs won't have any place to sell their horses to. The rescues and roadways are already full enough of horses. What will happen when there are 1000's of horses no one wants because they're no longer wanted because they're too big for the A breeders? Dumped in sales or heading to meat plants in Mexico?

MY big picture is, it won't be as bad if AMHR does it, IF your horses carry R papers already. BUT if AMHA follows suit, which is what I most fear, then this is what will happen. "Grandfathering" only works for so many, but not all. And what I said above could (and IMO would) happen.

I say, just enforce the measuring rules.

OK, now you're all going to tell me I'm wrong and that won't happen, but I've had YEARS to think about this and these are my feelings about it.
 
Good Afternoon,

I have enjoyed reading all of the pros and cons of this subject matter...I would like to address one thing regarding the author of the proposal. As with ALL proposals with the ASPC/AMHR it is customary to post the proposal but leave off the name of the author until it is presented at convention. This allows all of us time to discuss it without repercussions to the author. I do know last year some proposals that I had presented were made public with my name before convention. I had tons of phone calls and emails and some that were not no nice. Everyone is entitled to submit a proposal without being ridiculed. When these proposals are presented during the committee meetings, then and only then can they be amended or altered, and only if the author is present. If not, then they are voted down. In this case, even though Belinda stepped forward and stated that this was her proposal that she presented on someone else behalf, until it is brought to the floor for all to vote on, then and only then can she change ANY part of this proposal. That is why she's asking now for any tweaking.

Yes, even on the ASPC/ASPR side there's still problems with some stewards measuring.....they are measuring up the neck not at the withers, as I have personally seen some do just that. Not always but it still happens. JMTCW.

Karen

Karen,

I am not wanting to rob this thread but can you please direct me to the procedure, bylaw, rule or other specific area that correctly identifies and otherwise outlines the highlighted area...I am not aware of any such rules or procedure in print in any area of our organization and question the validity of any attempt to enforce or otherwise follow such guidelines in the absents of any such requirements. All committees are formed and staffed by the president of the ASPC/AMHR other then those individuals so named, no other members or officials are part of that committee and only those who are members of any committee may vote on any item before them...the membership whether present or not during any committee meeting has absolutely zero authority regarding a committee action...the general membership meeting is another story but the outline of events as highlighted above are absent of any validation within our organization to my knowledge.

The far reaching effect and importance of something having such far reaching ramifications as this would have, should not be taken so trivial as to be considered or rejected based on a flawed and irrational protocol/precedent which follows no doctrine or written guidelines. JMHO
 
Good Afternoon,

I have enjoyed reading all of the pros and cons of this subject matter...I would like to address one thing regarding the author of the proposal. As with ALL proposals with the ASPC/AMHR it is customary to post the proposal but leave off the name of the author until it is presented at convention. This allows all of us time to discuss it without repercussions to the author. I do know last year some proposals that I had presented were made public with my name before convention. I had tons of phone calls and emails and some that were not no nice. Everyone is entitled to submit a proposal without being ridiculed.

Karen

[/quote]

 

Karen ,

 

Thanks for your post , Yes I have had phone calls and LOTS of emails.. !!! Most asking me how I can take people being so ,umm not sure what the word is I want to use , they used Mean.!! I don't take it as mean !
default_sad.png
I just think they are very concerned !!
default_biggrin.png


 

I do think several have been a little Harsh and have tried to insinuate that there is some hidden agenda with this proposal , and believe me THERE IS NOT !! I am not even sure what it could have been if there was a hidden agenda ?????

 

And Karen what you wrote is exactly why those folks that wanted to submit it , were afraid to !!!!! I just told them heck I don't mind , Words don't hurt "Too Bad"" LOL !!

 

 

I guess I have been in the Miniature / shetland business all my life , well over 50 Yrs.
default_unsure.png
default_new_shocked.gif
My Father was in it way before me .. So if anyone thinks I don't have a vested interest you are crazy, My Family including my Father still depend 100% on this business , I have well over 125 head of Miniatures & Shetlands, So Folks I don't take this lightly.. And all I want is what is best for the ASPC/AMHR and it's Members..
default_wub.png


 

And the bottom line is the reason I wanted this brought to this forum was to see how EVERYONE felt before this was just sprung on everyone at Convention .!! As I really don't think people should be blind sided so to speak with things like this that are Major concerns.

 

I want to know what the majority of the breeders/ owners big and small want .. If everyone wants to continue measuring as we are now ,, then I have NO PROBLEM with that .. But I have heard the statement we should just measure at the wither for YEARS from 100's of Folks across the country . So now People here is you chance to see if the rest of the world wants it done this way also...

 

 

There are several breeders on here that have posted their views that I think very highly of , LaVern, Getita, R3, Lisa Strassle, and several more. And all have very very good points..
default_yes.gif


 

So guess I will go back and JUMP in that Flame Suit !! Remember ''DON'T SHOOT THE MESSAGENGER !!!
default_new_shocked.gif
default_new_shocked.gif


 
Robin (REO)

You already know from my early post that I agree with you!

And as to overseas buyers, like someone else said basically.... How hard is it to tell them the measurement from the last hairs of the mane and also the one to the withers.... so they can decide if they want the horse or not!

If people were just honest about so MANY things, we simply would not be having this whole conversation/discussion/proposal etc!!

Susan O.
 
I hear that there is a second proposal regarding measuring at the withers.

This proposal, I'm told, impacts both minis and ponies and the measurement would be at the bottom of the withers.

Anyone have more information on this?

Note to Belinda and other board members: If it's not just hearsay, I'm guessing you've gotten wind of this proposal and please give us more detail if you can.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top