Measuring Proposal

[Jacki Loomis]

I am on the verge of changing my mind about the current measuring proposal that will be considered at convention, I was very opposed to it but now I'm seeing value in it. I do want to say that these discussions have been very helpful to me, we don't all agree but I do think that the majority of us really just want what's best for our miniature horses.

I believe the current measuring process/system is under stress from ever taller horses being presented for competition at AMHR shows. I can so remember when we won National Grand Champion Halter Gelding and Pleasure Driving with Sagittars Little Joe back around 2002, he was huge compared to most horses being shown and I was always worried about measuring him at each show, he measures around 37 1/2". I no longer own him but he is still showing and at this past National show he looked small in his over 36" to 38" classes.

The stress I believe we have in the measuring process/system will not go away on its own. We have heard stories on this forum of hair being glued and implanted, drugs being used, etc. to get taller horses measured in. That will keep happening unless a drastic change is made which leads me to think Belinda's proposal to change to top of the wither measuring may be the "correction" we need. I now think I could support that proposal with no addition to the maximum of 38" but some sort of allowance to allow current show horses to keep showing. This change will be significant enough to change show and breeding habits which I think is critical to preserving the Miniature Horse. It will be painful in the short term but the benefit to preserving the uniqueness of the Miniature Horse will be worth it in my opinion.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]

 

[~Lisa~]

Jacki I could not have said it any better myself

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Jacki I agree with you as well. The only thing I could add to that is not make it a extradionary rule for 2011 but have it for the 2012 season. If the next years foals are to be measured at the withers what happens to those who will go over when this rule was not taken into affect when they decided to breed their mares.

 

[drivinghoss]

The current measuring system is fine the way it is. When this registry was established the measuring system was put in place so as to be fair to all horses. 20 years ago at the AMHR Nationals there was just as much complaining about the big horses as there was this year. Some people who lose will blame anything for that loss. A bigger horse will never beat a horse that is more correct conformationally.

The AMHR registry and shows have been growing because there has been a good set of rules in place. Our stewards do a great job of enforcing the rules. Our stewards do a great job of measuring horses also.

Frankly those people who want to change the measuring have ulterior motives.

Oh and I had a horse that measured out this year at nationals..I had a 2 year old that measured 37.25.

 

[muffntuf]

Jacki,

I can't support this still, although I recognize we need to look at this. Until we know how this will effect the registry's bottom line - and I believe that is where we will see how much revenue dollars and how many miniature horses will suddenly become worthless and possibly fill kill lots because people might consider them worthless - its just not supportable.

Make allowances - but remember how many foals might be expected this next year, etc.

We need to study this first.

 

[Jacki Loomis]

Jacki I agree with you as well. The only thing I could add to that is not make it a extradionary rule for 2011 but have it for the 2012 season. If the next years foals are to be measured at the withers what happens to those who will go over when this rule was not taken into affect when they decided to breed their mares.

That seems reasonable, giving people some time to adjust their breeding programs.

I will be negatively impacted in the short term too, I also have horses on the ground and in utero who would no longer measure in if the rule was changed but I think the industry will pay now or pay later. I hope the membership and BOD thoroughly look at this issue at Convention.

 

[Mominis]

I do not support it. I am afraid of the fate of the horses who may only be AMHR registered and will lose their ability to show and therefore their 'worth' to their show homes. While the ASPC/AMHR horses have another option, those AMHR only horses are out of luck. I don't want to see an outbreak of former show horses turning up with poor Champ's lot in life. That really scares me for the horses.

 

[~Lisa~]

IWhile the ASPC/AMHR horses have another option, those AMHR only horses are out of luck. I don't want to see an outbreak of former show horses turning up with poor Champ's lot in life. That really scares me for the horses.

I believe the proposal as written (although maybe I am remembering wrong) has a grandfathered in phrase meaning any horse currently registered will NOT measure the new way. So that no former show horses would be out of luck

 

[REO]

I am fiercely opposed to changing where we measure. Why should I be forced to change my breeding program, that I have spent 17 years of blood, sweat , tears and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ developing, just because *some* people cheat at shows? Why should I have to be the one to adjust my life and whole herd because some people can't enforce the rules or write them them better?

Even if they are changed, there will still be cheaters and still people that make mistakes trying to enforce them (I'm NOT talking about everyone, but the ones that caused this to be an issue in the 1st place)

I say, leave it alone and just enforce it, re-write it better, set down uniform standards etc.

Most people are thinking of showing or show horses. I'm thinking of horses LIVES and how they'll be affected if they're suddenly not worth diddly. It's hard enough marketing NICE registered horses, I hate to think about horses that are suddenly "grade".

Sorry, I must have put on my grumpy old lady suit today, but that's how I feel. I'm usually quiet, but I feel very strongly about this.

 

[OhHorsePee]

I am fiercely opposed to changing where we measure. Why should I be forced to change my breeding program, that I have spent 17 years of blood, sweat , tears and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ developing, just because *some* people cheat at shows? Why should I have to be the one to adjust my life and whole herd because some people can't enforce the rules or write them them better?

Even if they are changed, there will still be cheaters and still people that make mistakes trying to enforce them (I'm NOT talking about everyone, but the ones that caused this to be an issue in the 1st place)

I say, leave it alone and just enforce it, re-write it better, set down uniform standards etc.

Most people are thinking of showing or show horses. I'm thinking of horses LIVES and how they'll be affected if they're suddenly not worth diddly. It's hard enough marketing NICE registered horses, I hate to think about horses that are suddenly "grade".

Sorry, I must have put on my grumpy old lady suit today, but that's how I feel. I'm usually quiet, but I feel very strongly about this.

100% agree! So tell me this... How much will my now double registered mares that are 36 1/2" and 37 1/2" decrease in marketable value? Now that does not even count the monies from future foals lost. I think this proposal came about to make it better for some to market to Europe. Like I said about that months ago they just should measure at the withers honestly for those that need the wither measurement. If this proposal passes I have to wonder what legal ramifications will occur. I may even have to jump on that bandwagon if it happens.

 

[jeniemac]

I am fiercely opposed to changing where we measure. Why should I be forced to change my breeding program, that I have spent 17 years of blood, sweat , tears and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ developing, just because *some* people cheat at shows? Why should I have to be the one to adjust my life and whole herd because some people can't enforce the rules or write them them better?

Even if they are changed, there will still be cheaters and still people that make mistakes trying to enforce them (I'm NOT talking about everyone, but the ones that caused this to be an issue in the 1st place)

I say, leave it alone and just enforce it, re-write it better, set down uniform standards etc.

Most people are thinking of showing or show horses. I'm thinking of horses LIVES and how they'll be affected if they're suddenly not worth diddly. It's hard enough marketing NICE registered horses, I hate to think about horses that are suddenly "grade".

Sorry, I must have put on my grumpy old lady suit today, but that's how I feel. I'm usually quiet, but I feel very strongly about this.

 

[REO]

What I mean is, it's easy for some to say, "Well people will have a few years to change their breeding programs." But I don't think they fully understand what will happen.

Right now, people sell horses to other breeders, people getting started in breeding, because they're changing their programs etc. In order to sell what you have, there has to be a market for them.

If all of a sudden people are forced to scramble to change their programs to suit those that decided to change where they are measured, who will buy those horses? NO ONE will want these suddenly oversized horses or their offspring. There will be a glut of unwanted horses out there. (things are bad enough out there as it is) What will happen to them all? Dump them without papers at auctions to be bought by meat buyers or game farms in Mexico?

To me, the big picture ripples out farther than simply changing the way we measure.

It's good people are trying to figure out how to make things better for people, but I don't feel changing the way we measure will be better for the horses in the long run. My horses are my kids and I LOVE them.

Thanks for letting me say the way I feel and not being mean to me if you disagree

Sorry, I guess I wasn't done yet LOL!

 

[chandab]

I am fiercely opposed to changing where we measure. Why should I be forced to change my breeding program, that I have spent 17 years of blood, sweat , tears and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ developing, just because *some* people cheat at shows? Why should I have to be the one to adjust my life and whole herd because some people can't enforce the rules or write them them better?

I say, leave it alone and just enforce it, re-write it better, set down uniform standards etc.

Most people are thinking of showing or show horses. I'm thinking of horses LIVES and how they'll be affected if they're suddenly not worth diddly. It's hard enough marketing NICE registered horses, I hate to think about horses that are suddenly "grade".

Sorry, I must have put on my grumpy old lady suit today, but that's how I feel. I'm usually quiet, but I feel very strongly about this.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

When it come to this proposal I think its only fair if AMHR sent this out to all its members to beable to vote on it, just like the way it is. No changing to it at all at Convention. Cause this is a big deal and can make a impact on the breed. That way the breeders have a voice not just those who show.

Its just like when AMHA had their proposal to measure at the base of the withers, that was a HUGE mistake for AMHA when so many few people voted to pass it. AMHR needs to learn from their mistake and let the whole membership vote on it. Shoot IMO it needs to be done that way with all proposals period, but this paticular one does affect everyone involved with AMHR.

 

[susanne]

If measuring is done from the top of the withers AND the height limit is changed (permanently) to 39 or 40 inches, no horses would be bigger and nobody would need to change their breeding programs.

It's the same horse, just measured in a different place.

 

[REO]

Yup. But going by threads here in the past, MANY people that are for it are also for not raising the withers allowance (height)

 

[Jacki Loomis]

When it come to this proposal I think its only fair if AMHR sent this out to all its members to beable to vote on it, just like the way it is. No changing to it at all at Convention. Cause this is a big deal and can make a impact on the breed. That way the breeders have a voice not just those who show.

Its just like when AMHA had their proposal to measure at the base of the withers, that was a HUGE mistake for AMHA when so many few people voted to pass it. AMHR needs to learn from their mistake and let the whole membership vote on it. Shoot IMO it needs to be done that way with all proposals period, but this paticular one does affect everyone involved with AMHR.

I think voting on measuring by the entire membership would benefit the association in the long run, get more buy in on the final decision and then those on both sides no matter how it came it out would feel that they had a chance to voice their feelings.

I'll share (paraphrase) the conversation I had at Nationals with a long time breeder, this is what changed my mind as I did not previously see a benefit to changing the measuring.

"Fifty some years ago when the Shetland market was at it's lowest point, some breeders rebranded their smaller Shetland ponies as Miniature Horses. Fast forward to today and the current trend of cheap hardshipping of ever taller horses, Shetland ponies, and Hackney ponies which dilutes the very successful Miniature Horse brand. Our new customers can no longer see the difference between a pony and a miniature horse, the only people who benefit from this change are the Shetland pony breeders who now have a new market for the smaller ponies. The ASPC - AMHR is sacrificing long term demand for the Miniautre Horse for short term increases in revenue."

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]

 

[kaykay]

"Fifty some years ago when the Shetland market was at it's lowest point, some breeders rebranded their smaller Shetland ponies as Miniature Horses. Fast forward to today and the current trend of cheap hardshipping of ever taller horses, Shetland ponies, and Hackney ponies which dilutes the very successful Miniature Horse brand. Our new customers can no longer see the difference between a pony and a miniature horse, the only people who benefit from this change are the Shetland pony breeders who now have a new market for the smaller ponies. The ASPC - AMHR is sacrificing long term demand for the Miniautre Horse for short term increases in revenue."

Wow! Had to read this twice. Its been posted here over and over that small shetlands were the beginning of the Miniature horse. I have said over and over they were marketing genuis's.

What so many fail to see is that many of those Shetland farms always bred small mini sized ponies and continued to do that even after the Miniature horse boom. They never wavered. They are still going today. Some of these are AMHA/ASPC/AMHR registered (not hardshipped)

Shetlands were NEVER supposed to have to hardship into the registry they created but this got turned by Bod that was current at that time. Which still makes no sense that the very pony that created the Miniature horse has to hardship? Really think about that without bias and you will see that it doesnt make sense.

The problem is so many never noticed the ASPC/AMHR horses until the last few years even though they were always around. These Shetland farms that had the courage to not throw away the ASPC papers have been breeding these so called "fad" ponies for 50 years! When they started winning then people who never saw it suddenly saw it.

The measuring issue has nothing to do with what a horse a registered. It has everything to do with being able to accurately measure and enforce the rule book. It wouldnt matter if there were ZERO ASPC/AMHR horses showing at Nationals you would still have a measurement issue.

One has nothing to do with the other and I am just so tired of everything that is wrong being blamed on ASPC/AMHR horses.

 

[Minimor]

I'm sorry, I don't see anything in there that would cause me to think that heights should be reduced? What in there is a bad thing? As I figured, this is solely to keep more Shetlands out of AMHR. It won't keep them all out because there are surely a number of them that will still measure in at 38" or less at the top of the wither, but it will leave some of them out. That is one thing.

The thing that I am opposed to about this--it is effectively ruining the breeding programs of a number of breeders (not mine--I say this from an outside viewpoint because I am not actively breeding and have no intention of breeding any more Miniatures--and I do not have any AMHR horses that have ASPC papers)...those who have some good horses that measure 36-38" at the last mane hair horses...they are going to have to remove those horses from their breeding program and start over or just quit....and they are going to be left with horses that have little value. Perhaps they can sell those horses as show horses if they are young....older horses that have spent several years as broodmares are not likely to be purchased by anyone as show horses, and no one will purchase them for breeding--it is exactly as REO posted earlier--what fate will these horses be doomed to if this rule change goes through?

I called this the 'sorry loser proposal' earlier when this discussion first came up, and I continue to call it the SORRY LOSER PROPOSAL today.

 

[muffntuf]

"Fifty some years ago when the Shetland market was at it's lowest point, some breeders rebranded their smaller Shetland ponies as Miniature Horses. Fast forward to today and the current trend of cheap hardshipping of ever taller horses, Shetland ponies, and Hackney ponies which dilutes the very successful Miniature Horse brand. Our new customers can no longer see the difference between a pony and a miniature horse, the only people who benefit from this change are the Shetland pony breeders who now have a new market for the smaller ponies. The ASPC - AMHR is sacrificing long term demand for the Miniautre Horse for short term increases in revenue."

Jacki - I do not see this completely. I do understand there is a small market for the AMHR/ASPC, but I watched the classes from Nationals, there were only 4 AMHR/ASPC that stood out to me as being possibly out of place in the crowd, mostly in driving. But they measured in at Nationals so they could compete.

From the pony perspective - I can't see the difference in the Foundation, Classic show ring right now, it looked like 95% miniatures in the ring, not shetlands.

So this goes both ways in sense.

I do not believe it is the Shetland Pony that is sacrificing the miniature horse at all.

I am still opposed to this proposal until we study the effects it will have on the registry and the miniatures that could possibly be left behind. AMHR/ASPC registered animals might be measured out now, but as everyone has said - they would go to ASPC. But what about the miniature that isn't double registered? They will be measured out and this is targeted at the B size miniatures. I am not willing to loose a whole segment of the registry because someone calls foul play.