Measuring Proposal for Comment

[R3]

Since the original ’measuring’ topic got so long, and another topic was been started with a different ‘proposal’ using the ‘base of the withers’, I thought I’d go ahead put out another ‘tweaked’ version for comment.

This is basically a reworking of the idea that Belinda originally proposed. The difference is that I have added the ‘way’ to measure at the highest point of the withers (which I think is the ‘correct’ term for the ‘top’ of the withers). I copied the method/wording from the US Equestrian Federation and added it into the proposal. (Adding this extra part might affect which Part or Page in the Rule Book it is located, so it would need to be labeled appropriately.)

How would people feel if the proposal was worded like this?

VI Part 7 (?)

Position of Animal

The animal must stand squarely on all four feet in such a position that the front legs are vertical to the ground and the back of the hocks are in a vertical line with the point of the animal’s quarters. The head must be held low enough to reveal the highest point of the withers and no lower. The animal must be free of all appliances. Handlers must not interfere with the animal in any way that will prevent it from standing in this position; blinkers may be allowed.

Method of Measurement

With the animal in the aforementioned position, measure the vertical distance from the highest point of the withers to the ground. The cross-piece, arm or bar of the measuring device must be placed over the highest point of the withers and no measurement taken at any other part of the animal’s body will count. Additional pressure must not be applied to the cross-piece, arm or bar.

Application of Measurement

All horses, regardless of when foaled or registered, will be measured in the above described manner for all purposes and must not exceed 38”. EXECPTION: Those horses born prior to 1 January 2016 will still be eligible for registration and to be shown if they do not exceed 38” when measured at the last hair of the mane. (These horses are considered to be ‘Grandfathered’ so will retain all the rights of a registered animal and when shown will compete in the tallest division of the class offered.)

 

[Karen S]

Ok, you need to take out "appliances" because the AMHR Miniature Draft horse CAN have shoes on which would be considered an appliance. The horse would need to be without blankets, slinkies, hoods, etc that would cover the body in order to be measured.

Karen

 

[R3]

I don't really know what 'appliances' means exactly, but I don't think it would mean shoes, as this came from the US Equine Federation and most big horses are assumed to be wearing shoes when they are measured. But, I certainly have no problem with removing/changing that word, or the whole sentence.

VI Part 7 (?)

Position of Animal

The animal must stand squarely on all four feet in such a position that the front legs are vertical to the ground and the back of the hocks are in a vertical line with the point of the animal’s quarters. The head must be held low enough to reveal the highest point of the withers and no lower. Handlers must not interfere with the animal in any way that will prevent it from standing in this position; blinkers may be allowed.

Method of Measurement

With the animal in the aforementioned position, measure the vertical distance from the highest point of the withers to the ground. The cross-piece, arm or bar of the measuring device must be placed over the highest point of the withers and no measurement taken at any other part of the animal’s body will count. Additional pressure must not be applied to the cross-piece, arm or bar.

Application of Measurement

All horses, regardless of when foaled or registered, will be measured in the above described manner for all purposes and must not exceed 38”. EXECPTION: Those horses born prior to 1 January 2016 will still be eligible for registration and to be shown if they do not exceed 38” when measured at the last hair of the mane. (These horses are considered to be ‘Grandfathered’ so will retain all the rights of a registered animal and when shown will compete in the tallest division of the class offered.)

 

[midnight star stables]

IMO, This is a much better, more structured proposal; However, the fact that the height limit has not been raised to 35-36" and 39-40" concerns me greatly still. This proposal defiantly allows for more time for farms to make changes, however lowering the height standard of our breed by one or two inches will have a HUGE impact. This is defiantly more fair that the previous proposal, however it still has it's flaws for many of today's tall AMHR only horses.

Just something to think about.

 

[Kim]

While your proposed wording is much clearer on how the measurement is to take place, it still does not address my two main concerns (which I think are shared by many), as I posted about in great detail on the other thread.

1. No matter how accurately the top of the wither measurement is done, if you leave the height limits as they are now (34 & 38) you are still in effect "shrinking" the breed if you change to measuring this way. I still don't understand why anyone would want to decrease the size of the breed by up to 2 inches or more. That is the difference in measurement between "last hair of the mane" and "top of the wither" of a huge proportion of the most athletic and best moving horses. Why get rid these horses? It will do nothing at all good for the breed. "Grandfathering" of existing horses has nothing to do with this concern - ultimately you are decreasing the allowable size of Miniature Horses, which drastically decreases their performance potential. Who wants today's 32 and 36 inch minis to be tomorrow's tallest allowable horses? Not I. To those who are in favor of this, I want to know your reasoning as to why we should decrease the height of the Miniature Horse of the future by up to 2 inches.

2. You will encourage the breeding of poor moving, mutton-withered horses.

Finally, as I mentioned previously, the whole 'gaining respect from big horse people' argument seems a fallacy. On a whole, many big horse people (and I began as one of them and still am - I actually have more bigs than littles) tend to think minis are poorly conformed and utterly useless. Decreasing the size of our breed by 2+ inches is only going to perpetuate this myth.

So while I certainly understand the desire to measure our horses at the top of the withers just like everyone else in the horse world does, we just cannot change to doing this without also increasing the allowable height. The ramifications of decreasing the size of our breed are HUGE. Yes, it is unfortunate that our forefathers did not choose to measure at the withers from the beginning, but that’s the way it is and on a going forward basis, we have to consider what’s best for the future of the breed. Do we really want to sacrifice up to two inches of height so that the odd big horse person no longer thinks we’re strange for measuring at the last hair of the mane?

 

[alphahorses]

While your proposed wording is much clearer on how the measurement is to take place, it still does not address my two main concerns (which I think are shared by many), as I posted about in great detail on the other thread.

1. No matter how accurately the top of the wither measurement is done, if you leave the height limits as they are now (34 & 38) you are still in effect "shrinking" the breed if you change to measuring this way. I still don't understand why anyone would want to decrease the size of the breed by up to 2 inches or more. That is the difference in measurement between "last hair of the mane" and "top of the wither" of a huge proportion of the most athletic and best moving horses. Why get rid these horses? It will do nothing at all good for the breed. "Grandfathering" of existing horses has nothing to do with this concern - ultimately you are decreasing the allowable size of Miniature Horses, which drastically decreases their performance potential. Who wants today's 32 and 36 inch minis to be tomorrow's tallest allowable horses? Not I. To those who are in favor of this, I want to know your reasoning as to why we should decrease the height of the Miniature Horse of the future by up to 2 inches.

2. You will encourage the breeding of poor moving, mutton-withered horses.

Finally, as I mentioned previously, the whole 'gaining respect from big horse people' argument seems a fallacy. On a whole, many big horse people (and I began as one of them and still am - I actually have more bigs than littles) tend to think minis are poorly conformed and utterly useless. Decreasing the size of our breed by 2+ inches is only going to perpetuate this myth.

So while I certainly understand the desire to measure our horses at the top of the withers just like everyone else in the horse world does, we just cannot change to doing this without also increasing the allowable height. The ramifications of decreasing the size of our breed are HUGE. Yes, it is unfortunate that our forefathers did not choose to measure at the withers from the beginning, but that’s the way it is and on a going forward basis, we have to consider what’s best for the future of the breed. Do we really want to sacrifice up to two inches of height so that the odd big horse person no longer thinks we’re strange for measuring at the last hair of the mane?

Well said

And I brought this up on the other thread, but I believe final versions were due July 1. Not that it can't be tweaked at Convention before going to the BOD in the Spring, but I don't think you can modify the proposal between July 1 and Convention.

 

[Sandee]

Well, said, Kim.

 

[Minimor]

I still would not support this proposal. It still limits the maximum height to 38" and regardless of when it takes effect, I do not support this measurement.

 

[Magic]

Kim, wonderful post, very well thought out.

I completely agree.

I can't help but wonder just how many wonderful mares and stallions would be essentially rendered "obsolete" if a proposal passes that ends up reducing the size of registered miniatures. If someone has a beautiful, well-conformed and nice-moving stallion that is AMHR registered and near the upper limit of the current measuring standards who throws foals who end up about his size, who is going to dare use him for breeding if a TOTW measuring change is made without being adjusted to include horses of his height? Grandfathering just doesn't cut it if the offspring of the grandfathered horses HAVE to be a lot smaller to be able to be registered. I can't help but think that a proposal like this should wait to be passed until (if) a change were made to make miniature horses a breed instead of a height registry so that future foals can be registered regardless of whether they grow an inch or so too tall.

 

[LAZY J MINIS]

BEFORE YOU ROAST ME, GO BACK TO WHEN THE MINIATURE HORSE WAS ORGINALLY BRED AND THE USE FOR IT. IF WE ALLOW FOR GREATER HEIGHTS WE MIGHT AS WELL GO TO OUR BIGGER HORSES. THESE HORSES WE BRED TO STAY SMALL, PUSHING THE HEIGHT LIMIT GOES AGINST THE UNIQUE BREEDING OF THESE FABULOUS LITTLE EQUINES. IF YOU WANT PONIES,GET PONIES, BUT KEEP THE MINIATURE IN THE MINIATURE HORSE. WHEN I GOT INTO THE MINIS IF IT WAS OVER 34" IT WASN'T A MINI, TODAY THEY CAN GO UP TO 38". BUT ANY TALLER THEY WILL BE A PONY. JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

 

[Reble]

I must admit it does not matter what they change in the wording. 40" - 42" miniature horses.

Our Registered Paso Fino Horses, they usually

where 13 Hands which is 52" - 14.2 hands.

Which is only 10" taller than what yous want in your minis!

We used to show our Paso's in the Pony classes too, because of their size.

Paso Fino Breeders where also working on getting taller Paso's.

Was unusual to find any over 15 hands, etc in the blood line.

Our Stallion was 15.3 hands.

I say we are going backwards with Miniature Horses.

 

[Magic]

BEFORE YOU ROAST ME, GO BACK TO WHEN THE MINIATURE HORSE WAS ORGINALLY BRED AND THE USE FOR IT. IF WE ALLOW FOR GREATER HEIGHTS WE MIGHT AS WELL GO TO OUR BIGGER HORSES. THESE HORSES WE BRED TO STAY SMALL, PUSHING THE HEIGHT LIMIT GOES AGINST THE UNIQUE BREEDING OF THESE FABULOUS LITTLE EQUINES. IF YOU WANT PONIES,GET PONIES, BUT KEEP THE MINIATURE IN THE MINIATURE HORSE. WHEN I GOT INTO THE MINIS IF IT WAS OVER 34" IT WASN'T A MINI, TODAY THEY CAN GO UP TO 38". BUT ANY TALLER THEY WILL BE A PONY. JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

Not going to roast you.

I'm just curious how it would make miniatures "taller" if we take an already-registered miniature horse, say 33 1/2", and measure it differently? It's still the same height that it always was, it just has a different label. If there isn't an adjustment in the labeled height limits, then we are literally shrinking the miniatures. Which is ok, on the surface, but why is it ok to just throw away all of the horses that are "on the border"?

If minis ARE to be made smaller, there needs to be a multi-year plan to ease it in, IMO.

 

[Songcatcher]

Words in red are mine to address your questions.

Not going to roast you.

I'm just curious how it would make miniatures "taller" if we take an already-registered miniature horse, say 33 1/2", and measure it differently? If you are talking about only one horse, you would be correct. But let's say that this 33 1/2 inch horse measures 36 1/2 inches at the TOTW (as I have heard several say their horses have a 3 inch difference). So, you raise the limit by 3 inches to 37 inches for A size and this horse is still the same size and measures in. But, another horse that measures 37 inches at TOTW measures 36 inches at the LHOTM. You now have horses that are 2 inches taller being registered as Miniatures. Let's say that you consider an average height difference of possibly 1 1/2 inches from LHOTM to TOTW. Half of the horses still would not measure in and their owners would still have the same arguement. Some of those that do measure in would actually be taller than 34 inches if measured at the LHOTM. It's still the same height that it always was, it just has a different label. If there isn't an adjustment in the labeled height limits, then we are literally shrinking the miniatures. Which is ok, on the surface, but why is it ok to just throw away all of the horses that are "on the border"?

If minis ARE to be made smaller, there needs to be a multi-year plan to ease it in, IMO. I can agree wholeheartedly to that.

 

[Magic]

R3 said: "So, you raise the limit by 3 inches to 37 inches for A size and this horse is still the same size and measures in. But, another horse that measures 37 inches at TOTW measures 36 inches at the LHOTM. You now have horses that are 2 inches taller being registered as Miniatures."

Nope. Only the horses that are ALREADY registered as miniatures (and let's remember that we are talking about only AMHR here, as there is currently no such proposal in the chute for AMHA) are being KEPT as registered miniatures. In the future, all horses that WEREN'T grandfathered in would be measured at the same point (TOTW) and all horses would be the same height if they measured, say, 38". You wouldn't have to check to see where their last hair of their mane came to; the tallest point of their withers would be at the same place, which technically makes them the same size. My problem with this -- and with many other people's as well -- is that if there is no adjustment for those height limits and this proposal takes place quickly, there is absolutely no time for breeders to adjust. Big breeders may not be as affected since they may be able to just jetison the horses that will be too tall, but what happens to those people who have just a few horses and have spent years working on their breeding program, only to have a huge proportion of their horses no longer "valid"? If they breed for, say, 33" to 34" horses as I've heard many say that they do, they may not be able to use most of the horses that they own in order to breed for the smaller miniatures that are now the only future "legal" ones. Do you just tell them "too bad, so sad, start over"???

 

[alphahorses]

I can't help but think that a proposal like this should wait to be passed until (if) a change were made to make miniature horses a breed instead of a height registry so that future foals can be registered regardless of whether they grow an inch or so too tall.

I agree with most of what you said. But just a thought concerning the statement above: almost, if not all, small equine/pony registries (e.g. ASPC, POA, AHR,IQPA, APRA, etc ) still have height limits. If a pony/horse goes over that height, they cannot be shown and become almost unmarketable, especially as breeding animals. The same would certainly be the case for AMHR.

My problem with this -- and with many other people's as well -- is that if there is no adjustment for those height limits and this proposal takes place quickly, there is absolutely no time for breeders to adjust. Big breeders may not be as affected since they may be able to just jetison the horses that will be too tall, but what happens to those people who have just a few horses and have spent years working on their breeding program, only to have a huge proportion of their horses no longer "valid"? If they breed for, say, 33" to 34" horses as I've heard many say that they do, they may not be able to use most of the horses that they own in order to breed for the smaller miniatures that are now the only future "legal" ones. Do you just tell them "too bad, so sad, start over"???

 

[alphahorses]

I must admit it does not matter what they change in the wording. 40" - 42" miniature horses.

I say we are going backwards with Miniature Horses.

The fact is, many 38" horses already are 40" if you measure them at the withers. It's not about allowing a new group of taller horses in. It's about admitting that we've been playing this game of pretending that our horses are smaller than they really are by measuring them at the last hair and it's about not hurting people who have been breeding horses in the 37-38" range.

We're not going backwards. We're just admitting that we really had 40" minis all along. Magic said it well:

I'm just curious how it would make miniatures "taller" if we take an already-registered miniature horse, say 33 1/2", and measure it differently? It's still the same height that it always was, it just has a different label. If there isn't an adjustment in the labeled height limits, then we are literally shrinking the miniatures.

For what it's worth, I do agree with you that changing the limits to anything over 40" would be excessive. (Did someone suggest anything over 40"?). Even 39.5" or 39.75" would include almost all horses that currently measure 38" at the last hair, and would help in marketing by keeping the measurement in the 30's. Kind of like charging $99 instead of $100

But if we really want to resolve this whole issue, we won't pass the proposal at all. I believe it has made something that was never a problem into a huge problem. As someone stated on another thread, a reasoning behind the proposal should have been presented. If you submit a proposal in a business environment, you always have to provide your reasoning, the pros, the cons, the impacts, the potential impacts - both present and future. None of that was done with this proposal and it has caused a lot of unnecessary emotion, stress, and hard feelings. Perhaps our rule change form needs to be changed to require this information. It would not only provide information to the membership that is necessary to make an informed decision, but would keep people from proposing rule changes w/out putting at least some thought into their impact. Just my opinion.

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

The fact is, many 38" horses already are 40" if you measure them at the withers. It's not about allowing a new group of taller horses in. It's about admitting that we've been playing this game of pretending that our horses are smaller than they really are by measuring them at the last hair and about not hurting people who have been breeding horses in the 37-38" range.

We're not going backwards. We're just admitting that we really had 40" minis all along.

But, for what it's worth, I do agree with you that changing it to anything over 40" would be excessive. (Did someone suggest anything over 40"?). Even 39.5" or 39.75" would include almost all horses that currently measure 38" at the last hair, and would help in marketing by keeping the measurement in the 30's. Kind of like charging $99 instead of $100

Totally agree.

If we measure A horses at 36" (that's 3 feet- maybe a new way to "advertise" to potential buyers) and add one hand- 4"- for the B horses that should pretty much cover all our horses. I don't think we should go any higher than 40".

If I feel up to it today (it's SO hot here...) I want to measure ALL of my horses both ways to see what kind of differences I'll get. If I do I will post the results.

Lucy

 

[midnight star stables]

The fact is, many 38" horses already are 40" if you measure them at the withers. It's not about allowing a new group of taller horses in. It's about admitting that we've been playing this game of pretending that our horses are smaller than they really are by measuring them at the last hair and it's about not hurting people who have been breeding horses in the 37-38" range.

We're not going backwards. We're just admitting that we really had 40" minis all along. Magic said it well:

For what it's worth, I do agree with you that changing the limits to anything over 40" would be excessive. (Did someone suggest anything over 40"?). Even 39.5" or 39.75" would include almost all horses that currently measure 38" at the last hair, and would help in marketing by keeping the measurement in the 30's. Kind of like charging $99 instead of $100

But if we really want to resolve this whole issue, we won't pass the proposal at all. I believe it has made something that was never a problem into a huge problem. As someone stated on another thread, a reasoning behind the proposal should have been presented. If you submit a proposal in a business environment, you always have to provide your reasoning, the pros, the cons, the impacts, the potential impacts - both present and future. None of that was done with this proposal and it has caused a lot of unnecessary emotion, stress, and hard feelings. Perhaps our rule change form needs to be changed to require this information. It would not only provide information to the membership that is necessary to make an informed decision, but would keep people from proposing rule changes w/out putting at least some thought into their impact. Just my opinion.

I simply agree 100%.

I almost feel that those who have miniatures under 34" are turning their backs on the B's(Well taller B's rather) and almost pushing for this, as they feel there are too many "big" horses now and that they won't be affected. I'm not sure how to word this, and I hope I'm miss reading peoples posts.

Cutting the height, is cutting out horse. Cutting out horses is going to affect everything in the minis and ruin the LIVES of many farms. This is seriously going to HURT people! I just do not agree with this!

I WISH I was able to go to Convention!

 

[Yaddax3]

Whether it's politics or ponies (or minis), I often shudder when people shift into do-good mode and decide what's best for the rest of us.

They become like pit bulls on an ankle. They're not letting go.

They perceive what is right and, darn the torpedoes and the last hair of the mane, it's full speed ahead.

 

[AshleyNicole]

Just to let you know….most of my horses are under 34" and I feel like this will affect me as well. I live 15 min from where they are having the convention and you can bet I am taking off work to make sure I am there for this one . It looks to me on this board at least, the majority don't think this will work, it's too bad the majority has (i think?) no opportunity to vote unless you go to the convention.. I wish everyone could send in an absentee ballot because you can bet the few that want this new rule will be there voting