Measuring Old & New

[Karen S]

Good Morning,

Ok, I need you all to work with me here....I'm going to post the CURRENT heights/ages from the rulebook. Cut and past this into your remarks putting what height limits in each division you would like to see. If you like the "Under" division the way it is now, just put "Leave As Is" if you don't like the "Under" division under the current rules, but would like to raise the height limits, then give me what you would want in the height catagories. The same thing applies to the "Over" division. I'll give you what is current in our rulebook and my example.

Karen

Current Rules for Measuring of Miniature Horses:

Part 9 Height Divisions...page 105 ASPC/AMHR rulebook

A. Miniature Horses

1. AMHR shall have 2 height divisions

a. Under:

Horses 3 years of age and older-34" and Under

Two Year Olds-33" & Under

Yearlings-32" & Under

Foals of current year-30" & Under

b. Over:

Horses 3 years of age and older-over 34" but not over 38"

Two Year Olds-Over 33" to 37"

Yearlings-Over 32"-36"

Foal of current year-Over 30" to 32"

Karen's Example:

A. Miniature Horses

a. Under:

Horses 3 years of age and older-35" & Under

Two Years Old-34" & Under

Yearlings-33" & Under

Foals of current year-32" & Under

b. Over:

Horses 3 years of age and older-Over 35" but not over 40"

Two Years Old-Over 34" to 39"

Yearlings-Over 33" to 38"

Foals of current year-Over 30" to 32"

As soon as we all agree on what height limits Max you want in each division, I'll retype it all like you want it to read in the rulebook.

Karen

 

[kaykay]

This is not directed to Karen, but to everyone

I just have to wonder what the real agenda is behind all these measuring proposals. Is it really to get us the respect of other breeds, or is it really to keep out high withered ponies ie moderns from showing as Miniatures?

If it was just about gaining respect and getting more accurate measurements then common sense would dictate a raising of the height limits. If its to keep out ponies then for sure you would measure at the wither and leave the heights the same.

Just some food for thought

Kay

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Even if (I say IF) the pass a the rule to measure at the withers, and not raise the limit, people will breed smaller high withered horses to show.

Sure you may knock some out now, but they will still be there to breed and pass on those high withers. What then? Pass a rule that nobody can have a high withered horse?

 

[Karen S]

Good Morning,

OK, I think everyone has made their point...lets keep on track here. I'm taking from my direct question on pages 1 & 2 from the respondents that they WOULD agree to measuring at the withers, but with a height change. All I'm wanting to do and know is give us some idea of what heights you would agree/or want to see. That is all. There has been enough posted regarding high withers, mutton withers etc. Now to go forward from here you have to establish some guides here, then I'll attack the wording, then once it's all put together I'll re-type it so everyone can see the results.

Again, stay on track with my request, I'm just trying to help you all sort it out. Nothing more.

Karen

 

[JWC sr.]

My suggestion would be again to keep it simple and not make it any more complicated than is required. I would add 2" to each respective division and move forward.

In other words take the B division to 40" and the A division to 36", with the respective age classes reflecting the increase also.

I also would give a two year window before it went into effect.

Simple plans for a simple man. LOL

 

[Karen S]

Thank you John as that is what I'm looking for. I'm all for keeping it simple.

Karen

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

My suggestion would be again to keep it simple and not make it any more complicated than is required. I would add 2" to each respective division and move forward.

In other words take the B division to 40" and the A division to 36", with the respective age classes reflecting the increase also.

I also would give a two year window before it went into effect.

Simple plans for a simple man. LOL

Ditto. K I S S. (Keep it simple....)

 

[AshleyNicole]

I agree with adding 2 inches onto every size division, I do like the idea that Belinda came up with but I just think we just need to change the height so as not to reduce the size of the breed and change the year that it would go into effect

 

[Belinda]

I have spoke with Jeanie B. and she said when time allowed at Nationals that the Stewards would ask for folks to volunteer to have their horses measured both way , last hair of the mane ,and top of wither, so that we can have some idea of the difference in ways of measuring . And we will have the results at Convention ..

 

[Karen S]

Thanks Belinda & Jeanne. That will be great and can be used here to get the breakdowns for the height catagories. It will help to see where they actually need to be broken down. People still need to decide "where" they will be happy with the height adjustments and be happy with what ever is decided on.

Karen

 

[Lisa Strass]

-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.

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 !

I agree with you. If we raise the height up to 40" at the top of the withers, there really isn't any difference between the "big" minis and the "little" shetlands. I suppose this should make me happy because that is the category that 80% of my horses fall into... but I don't think this is really the long term goal of the Miniature Horse. So I'm back to leave the heights as is... If you want to measure at the BOTM or TOTW, I'll adjust. Show Classic/Foundation/Modern Shetlands as such and Minis as such. For those exceptional horses that are able to compete in both, go for it! (I believe this is the direction the breed is heading.) Shetlands are still able to be hardshipped into R, so the quest to continue breeding the most perfect equine in Miniature is not being taken away from anybody.

 

[~Lisa~]

I agree with you. If we raise the height up to 40" at the top of the withers, there really isn't any difference between the "big" minis and the "little" shetlands. I suppose this should make me happy because that is the category that 80% of my horses fall into... but I don't think this is really the long term goal of the Miniature Horse.

I fully agree and if we are going to adjust our heights to 40 inches then perhaps we need to do one of two things.. either open up the registry to hardshipping and allow other blood in to make improvements besides just the Shetland.. or simply close it to ASPC and AMHA and leave it a closed registry. Not sure which one I am more in favor of but just a thought

I could not be more against raising the height to 40 inches

 

[Karen S]

Lisa,

My example is an example. Not something that is set in stone. Going by what lots have posted in the two different threads so just summarizing a bit here.

Please give us your heights that you would use. No one is wrong, just need to get some idea of what "could" be. I know Belinda just posted that they will be doing some measuring at the AMHR Nationals, but until then, what numbers would you feel comfortable with?

Thanks.

Karen

 

[~Lisa~]

Oh Karen I realize that and appreicate you taking the time to word it out so many different ways which will allow everyone to be prepared at Convention

My opinion will not be a popular one (big surprise there LOL) but I would not raise the height period. I would like to see it not be extraordinary and go into effect like I think you mentioned 2012 or even 2014 and leaving those horses registered prior to that date as eligable at Last mane hairs.. and anything born and reigstered after said date to be measured at 34 or 38 for the top of the height at the top of withers. I am not for raising the height period- but of course the world never has and never will run according to Lisa

I guess yes it might make some minis smaller but then again while I LOVE the b horses is that not the whole point of the registry in both divisons? To breed the smallest most correct horse? Be that 30 and under- 34 and under or 38 and under?

I think somewhere along the line it became the largest possible Miniature horse? Again I love B horses raise B horses and love my ASPC ponies - breeding plans can adjust in 3 or 4 years most breeders make plenty of adjustments in a few year time span anyway - Anytime you breed 38 to 37 or 38 you run a risk of the horse going over no matter where you measure them at - the great thing if this were to pass would be for ASPC as those double registered horses would maybe eventually end up back at the ASPC ring and help out attendence there?

 

[gvpalominominis]

I was going through some old club paperwork and although it was from an AMHA club... I believe there was a mission several years ago where on a volunteer basis, show measurers did 2 measurements and measured the horses then at the "base" of the wither and the last mane hair... I never read about AMHA's findings, but there was insignificant difference in our club's comparisons and there was substantial participation... like within 1/4" either way or the horses measured the same.

But what was discovered was that the difference was insignificant enough that the height requirements in the rules would not have to change. There was a complaint though that some people found it difficult to feel or tell where the base of the wither was. Maybe with equine skeletal structure education that would not be a problem... but I imagine that may mean there could be some discrepancy with the determining the "top" of the wither as well. = ) Especially with the mutton withered horses. (AMHA shot down the measuring change to the base of the wither feeling they still might let some of taller horses in the registry.)

I believe that this was a more just playing field. Two horses side by side the same height structually, actually have the same measurement instead of determining one or the other's registration outcome by where a hair grew.

My issue with the top of the wither measurement without an increase adjustment to the height requirement is concern for the progeny of the 38" horses currently measured by the last mane hair. The offspring may be the exact same height as their registered parents by way of the last mane hair... but because the parents are only grandfathered in by a certain timeline, those offspring are pretty much screwed, especially if they are AMHR registered only and end up measuring over 38" at the top of the wither.

So, my vote has always definitely been we need to use a structural part of the horse for measurement... because although you will never get rid of discrepancy measurements no matter what, at least it's a true measurable component of the horse. This being either the top of the wither with height requirement adjustment to the rules, or base of the wither with no adjustment.

 

[Devon]

Thought I'd just remove this since it is off topic to this thread and clearly im really upset

.

 

[Magic]

I am not for raising the height period-

But giving a height allowance wouldn't be "raising the height" of registered horses, it would be "not shrinking" the future ones.

I see the proposal of measuring to the top of the withers without a height adjustment as a MAJOR change in the registry, akin to something like the Paint horse breed suddenly deciding that in the immediate future horses must have a majority of white on them or they aren't eligible to be registered anymore. It's awfully out of the blue and has far more repercussions than it may first appear.

 

[Karen S]

Good Afternoon All,

Discussion is good, but we have already hashed all of that out. I need you to give me some idea of what height numbers for each of the age divisions. Go back and re-read what I'm asking. Just give some idea of what you think would work. John gave his as far as how much, Lisa said no way (which is fine for those that don't want to see any change) but seems like the majority on here do with some adjustments to the heights. Please humor me on this, like I said it's not set in stone and until the heights are done at the AMHR Nationals for comparison we ALL may be way off.

Again, good discussion but lets stick to what is at hand....Thanks.

Karen

 

[Magic]

I wouldn't want to *guess* at what heights the divisions should be; something that important should be given at least *some* research, IMO. I'd be happy to measure my horses and let everyone know what the differences would be for me and my program, but my results may be drastically different from many others'. I like the idea of horses being measured both ways at Nationals so as to get a larger sample of the miniature population than just a few farms here and there.

I do think that foals tend to have less prominent withers so perhaps the height allowance on them wouldn't need to be as much as full-grown miniatures.

 

[Karen S]

Hi Magic,

Go ahead and do your horses. If you would like you can email me privately at [email protected]. I would need to know the height at the last hair of the mane and the height at the top of the withers plus the age of the horse. Thanks.

Karen