Measuring Old & New

[Karen S]

Good Afternoon,

This is just a thought that I have been mulling over keeping in mind our current height catagorie’s listed in the ASPC/AMHR rulebook.

If a measurement rule was to go into effect, on January 1, 2014:

All Miniatures born up to December 31, 2013 must be registered or on an application for registration, must be on file with the ASPC/AMHR Registry by the 31st of December 2013. These Miniatures would have a yellow measurement card that stated that miniature would be measured at the last hair of the mane. Those horses no matter how old or how long they remain on the show circuit would continue to be measured at the last hair of the main until the day they die. By using a “color” coded measurement card it would alert the Show Stewards that this horse was to be measured at the last hair of the mane. Measurement cards would be requested from the Registry and will have the horses name, registration number and date of birth printed on it. Then that card would be carried to all sanctioned ASPC/AMHR shows to be presented to the Show Steward alerting them as to which way said horse would be measured. Sixty day measurement cards would still be in use marked with the horse’s height on cards as they are currently done.

Effective January 1, 2014:

Those Miniatures that were born starting on January 1, 2014 or those being registered after the December 31st cut off date would have to be measured at the top of the withers. The measurement taken at the top of the withers would be the division that animal would show in. So, if said animal measured 28” at the top of the withers then it would be an “Under” horse. If said horse measured 34/14 at the top of the withers then it would be an “Over” horse. If said horse that was papered with the ASPC but hardship in as a miniature measured 38” at the top of the withers, then said ASPC horse can obtain its AMHR registration papers. If horse has AMHA registration papers and wishes to hardship in after the December 31st, 2013 date, said AMHA horse MUST be measured at the top of the withers and shown in the height division set forth in the rules for any and all AMHR miniatures.

All Miniatures will stand square, head in a natural position, no lifting of head, no lowering of head and miniature must be free of all clothing while being measured. Rules that are current in ASPC/AMHR rulebook on page 104 will remain in affect. If animal is found to be “over” for the division of which it was to be shown in, then owner/trainer/agent must move animal up into the over division.

This would allow everyone to get those horses registered by the 31st of December 2013 as ample time has been afforded and would allow those that had mares bred in 2012 for foals born in 2013 to be under the old system. Then on January 1st 2014 ALL miniatures born after December 31st, 2013 must be measured at the top of the withers.

Karen

 

[R Whiteman]

Is it the intent of the organization to change the standards for AMHR and indeed create a registry with smaller horses or do they want to change the place on the horse where we current measure them and leave the actual height of the horses the same? I hope that the change is to move the miniature horse in to reality with the rest of the horse world and not an attempt to reduce the size of the breed. Changing the place of measurement to the highest point on the withers could be good thing. But making that change and thinking that AMHR should keep the same numbers of 34 and 38 inches as the maximum heights at the withers is flawed in my opinion. There needs to be a change made in the standards to reflect the change in place of measurement. New divisions could be 36 and 40 at the top of the withers and there would not be a significant change in the overall height of the breed. Just a different place to measure.

Horses that are born before the change date continue the same. Those that are born after the change use the new standard.

Ron

 

[midnight star stables]

Is it the intent of the organization to change the standards for AMHR and indeed create a registry with smaller horses or do they want to change the place on the horse where we current measure them and leave the actual height of the horses the same? I hope that the change is to move the miniature horse in to reality with the rest of the horse world and not an attempt to reduce the size of the breed. Changing the place of measurement to the highest point on the withers could be good thing. But making that change and thinking that AMHR should keep the same numbers of 34 and 38 inches as the maximum heights at the withers is flawed in my opinion. There needs to be a change made in the standards to reflect the change in place of measurement. New divisions could be 36 and 40 at the top of the withers and there would not be a significant change in the overall height of the breed. Just a different place to measure.

Horses that are born before the change date continue the same. Those that are born after the change use the new standard.

Ron

I agree. This better, but simply the same proposal. I vote leave it as is unless the height is changed also.

 

[Getitia]

Karen,

If the club moves forward with measuring miniature horses at the top of the withers without raising the height to compensate for the change in measurement -example - a horse that measures between 37 and 38 at the last hair of the withers - this horse under the new measurement definition will be technically "oversize" - which is why the proposal addresses the need to grandfather as this group is now oversized under the new measurement rule definition.

Therefore how does the ASPC/AMHR organization address the future and almost instant devaluation of this current height group? Do you know if those who support this proposal have analyzed how many horses between the ages of 3 and 25 are registered at 37 or 38 inches and how this group compares to the other height groups - in addition, can someone provide the number of members of this height group as well? I suspect many would like to see some fact based statistics to determine how many horses and individual members will be impacted as they consider all of these various proposals.

Can you share why those supporting this change seem opposed to "increasing the height to compensate for the increased height where the horse will be measured? - it is afterall the same horse. Would we decrease the height if we decided to measure at the lowest point of the back? Again - same horse.

Thought I'd share this story with you as the concept is interesting given the various discussions - our grandchildren show some of our miniatures in open shows - and of course in the "horse world" in some areas of our state, the clubs/organizations only recognize ponies and horses - with 14.2 being the standard height definition cut off point. As others have mentioned as is traditional at these shows all equine are measured at the withers. Two divisions - horses and ponies- Thus they don't recognize the term "miniature horse" in the equine open show world - they are all ponies and show as such - Quarter Ponies, POA, Hackney's, Miniatures, etc - all compete in the same class.

Hopefully we won't have also have a future proposal so that we will have credibility in the equine world to change the name from miniature horse to miniature pony given that is how we are viewed in the eyes of many at these open shows that we attend. The points of debate are similar.

Along those same lines - fortunately many clubs/organizations such as PtHA - do recognize miniature horses as something other than a small pony and support our breeds' current method of measuring at the last hair of the withers as the standard of measurement that has been around for 25+ years. It would seem that the proposed measurement change that incudes a grandfathering show provision may create some confusion in these organizations (one miniature club measures using one method - and the other major club measures using a different method and has split grandfathering requirements) - may be some bickering in the exhibitor ranks during the measurement process and hopefully the clubs would not be so confused to say - just forget it we don't need to deal with this complexity.

Just some thoughts Karen.....................

 

[Karen S]

Ok,

Since I tried to do a possible scenario on the measuring, using our current height measurement in the rulebook, what most are missing is that the heights in the rulebook according to the age divisions would have to be moved. In reading through all of these post most are not wanting the height catagories to change. Amy I correct? See example below as to a possible change in the rules for raising the age/heights:

Example: A miniature 2 year old measuring 33" & under at the last hair of the mane, now at the withers measures 33.5. How many of those 33" at the last hair of the mane have measured out of their age bracket at any shows? I don't know but do know in the Shetland Foundation division we have a mare showing in our area that this same scenario happened this year. As a two year old she measured 41.5, but as a three year old she can be 41.5 if she stays there or no more than 42".

I think this is what the most of you are concerned about is how tall will they actually be.

Karen

 

[Karen S]

Getitia,

I fully understand where you are coming from.

Karen

 

[muffntuf]

Unless the height is adjusted for the new method, any way you word this proposal will eventually loose 1,000's of miniatures already in the system, many who do not show - would end up being valueless.

If we adjusted the height requirements with the proposed way to measure we won't.

 

[Karen S]

Trace,

I'm not talking about any kind of value here. That hasn't crossed my mind.

Like the rest of you I'm trying to grasp what would be the best possible solution to the question (proposal)that was presented. We all have some great ideas pros and cons. I don't have a problem either way but if there's more to this story than we are getting from the first thread that was put out there, then maybe Belinda could give us some more insight as to why this proposal came about. Are there really that many horse's NOT being measured correctly? I don't know, if everyone likes the way it's being done now, then vote to leave the measuring as is. If you don't like the way it's done, then try to come up with something that will work for all (like my example at the beginning of this thread it's not something that I have submitted just was mulling over as stated staying within the guidelines of our rulebook). Again, discussion is good.

Karen

 

[Minimor]

I'm sorry, that last post (oops, 2nd last--Karen posted again before I got this reply finished, so I'm referring to her 2nd last post!) made no sense at all to me--you lost me on that one!

would I vote in favor of this rule change proposal of Karen's? NO!

Why not? Ron pretty much expressed my view in his post above. I do not want to see the measurement change to the top of the wither if the height limits are going to stay the same. I don't care if it's to happen in 2011, 2014 or 2026. I will never support that proposal.

If you want to raise the maximum height to 39" or even 40" when measured at the wither, with the under division being 35" or 36" at the wither--I would vote in favor of that.

I see no valid reason to set the height at the withers at the 38" limit and by doing so have the horses that currently measure in at 38 or 37.5" or somewhere in there be made worthless in terms of breeding. So they could still show because they are grandfathered in under the old measurement system. So what. Big deal. Various farms have invested a great deal of money in some lovely horses in this taller height range--not just for showing, but for breeding as well, and I don't think it's right that these farms should just like that be left with horses they can show but never breed because their offspring are likely to be over 38" at the wither....even though those offspring would quite likely still measure in at the last mane hair. Changing the measurement spot and raising the height limit 1" or 2" to accomodate those horses that actually have withers....which IMO is a good thing!...is NOT going to make Miniatures overall taller.

I have no use for any rule change that is meant to eliminate certain competition by lowering the height limit for the breed--and as far as I can tell, that is what this rule change is intended to do!

 

[Karen S]

Ok,

Just so I understand...you all would approve of measuring at the top of the withers if the height/age divisions was raised accordingly?

Karen

 

[JWC sr.]

The point you make about in effect this causing a smaller horse to be in AMHR is a good one, it indeed would and I do not think that is something we really need to do for the health of the registry.

Personally I am all for measuring to the top of the withers as long as there is an expansion across the board in the various age classes to accommodate this change in the way we measure. This would be needed to accommodate the height of the withers as versus the last mane hair.

For some horses it will make very little difference as they are "mutton withered" as we used to call it in big horses. Meaning there is very little change from the back to the withers. With that said though most folks have been for several years trying to breed away from that type horse as they cannot physically move as well as a horse with a true wither.

With all that said, it would be very easy to unilaterally draw up the proper stance of the horse, change the height we will allow somewhere between 1 & 3" up and start measuring at the top of the withers. No need to grandfather, no need to make other changes and I think it would satisfy the wide majority of the people in the registry.

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

The point you make about in effect this causing a smaller horse to be in AMHR is a good one, it indeed would and I do not think that is something we really need to do for the health of the registry.

Personally I am all for measuring to the top of the withers as long as there is an expansion across the board in the various age classes to accommodate this change in the way we measure. This would be needed to accommodate the height of the withers as versus the last mane hair.

For some horses it will make very little difference as they are "mutton withered" as we used to call it in big horses. Meaning there is very little change from the back to the withers. With that said though most folks have been for several years trying to breed away from that type horse as they cannot physically move as well as a horse with a true wither.

With all that said, it would be very easy to unilaterally draw up the proper stance of the horse, change the height we will allow somewhere between 1 & 3" up and start measuring at the top of the withers. No need to grandfather, no need to make other changes and I think it would satisfy the wide majority of the people in the registry.

What he said...

If you raise the heights, yes, I am all for the proposal. Don't raise them, and I would have to disagree.

Lucy

 

[Minimor]

yes. I'm with them--raise the height limits for the various ages and of course then for the maximums for overs & unders & I would be in favor of the proposal.

 

[AshleyNicole]

I agree with all above, if the height limits are raised I would support it as well

 

[midnight star stables]

Ok,

Just so I understand...you all would approve of measuring at the top of the withers if the height/age divisions was raised accordingly?

Karen

Yes!

 

[kaykay]

John

I do believe that is all the majority of people here posting want. Go ahead and measure at the top of the wither but then you are going to have to change all the height limits especially in the age brackets.

This does away for the need for special cards, stewards measuring 2 different ways, grandfathering etc.

And bottom line its what is best for the members. And at the end of the day that is what really matters.

kay

 

[MiniFriend]

I like Karen's idea ( and I think it was mentioned in another post too) about having a longer phase-in period ( taking effect later). It gives people time to plan breedings.

Before this proposal, I bred my 34 inch mare to a 30 inch stallion this year, partly because I wanted a smaller offspring from my mare...and now I am glad that I did. I don't think that I would value my mare less if she becomes one of the "grandfathered" minis. I would not hestitate to buy a tall "grandfathered" AMHR B mare if she has excellent confirmation (especially if she has bloodlines rare to amhr which many of the tallest ones do) as I could breed her to a small stallion that "downsizes".

Like others have mentioned I wish that the authors of the measuring proposal would share why they chose not to change the maximum heights. The reasons might give more meaning to the proposal.

I am just guessing but maybe they are frustrated that many Amhr B miniatures are currently similiar in size to the "full-size" foundation/classic under shetlands.

With the current measuring at the last hair of the mane, it seems like there has always been some "fuzziness" or denial as to how tall our tallest miniatures really are in comparision to the rest of the horse and pony world. If everyone already "knew" that then why would we need examples of wither vs. last hair of the mane measurements being brought forth as examples this past week?

I like the Amhr B division for a bit taller driving horse than the A division. The most advantage for showing is gained by having/breeding horses that are in the top one inch of this division. So a lot of horses would be affected. I understand that is huge issue in face of this proposal, but it also clearly points out how many of the Amhr B miniatures are almost the size of the tallest foundation/classic under shetlands. As I understand it the foundation/classic under shetlands are 42 inches and under...measured at the wither. I just thought this was a point that no one had previously mentioned in the previous (long) measuring thread (except me yesterday)...and since yesterday it looks like most have stopped posting on that thread? I editted my post from yesterday, as I realized I hadn't made a stab at answering, and copied below:

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 a good option too.

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 be 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. While 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 else 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 pretty much the current situation...though "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 !

 

[JWC sr.]

For goodness sake, don't worry about what some folks say when they take shots at you. You have a right to your opinion and from what you posted you have given some thought to your positions before posting. Good going and good job.

While you and I may disagree of any given subject. I hope you will continue to post, that is what makes these forums worthwhile: logical thoughts, learning from each other and enjoying our horses together.

Past that, to be honest a 38" AMHR B horse of today measured at the last mane hair is more than likely 39 - 40" to the withers. To me that still makes them a small equine which is what we are all supposed to be about. My wife like the 32" and under horses and I personally like the 36 - 37" horses. Why even in my own house we can't like the same thing is not for me to question, it just is!

So if we all are measuring to the same place, it is easier to find, it complies with the rest of the equine industry, allows for all of the current vast majority of horses in the registry to remain in, does not require grandfathering or special connotations at the shows or with the registration papers. Why Not?

Hopefully it cuts down on the problems that people have when trying to measure at shows and also may make things easier for sales between ourselves here in the USA and overseas.

A wither is very easy to find. LOL But a last mane hair is at best a fictional thing that we all look for zealously at times.

 

[Miniv]

A wither is very easy to find. LOL But a last mane hair is at best a fictional thing that we all look for zealously at times.

TRUE !!!!

 

[~Lisa~]

S

A wither is very easy to find. LOL But a last mane hair is at best a fictional thing that we all look for zealously at times.

Now there ya go - the simple truth and nothing but the truth