"Miniture" Breeding Stock
- Thread starter midnight star stables
- Start date
Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:
shelia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 572
- Reaction score
- 5
I am fairly new to AMHA and do have some opinions, but I need to understand this a little better. When did they stop allowing horses to be registered as foundation stock? It sounds to me that some farms have legit foundation stock and some farms don't. I take it that the farms that don't must have younger horses. The AMHA at some point stopped anymore tall horses for foundation stock. They must have felt there was now a large enough gene pool of smaller horses so there is no longer a need to bring in any new ones. This may be true. (IT may not) everybody has there own opinion on that. It is true that if you have larger horses in the backgound you will have a higher risk of the foals going over, so it is important to know the correct sizes of the horses in the background. Some people are willing to take that chance. ( a lot of people!) Some people are not and check the background sizes hoping for very small ones as far back as they can find. That is what I want to see, however, not many of my horses have a tiny background on both sides.
Am I understanding this topic correctly?
Am I understanding this topic correctly?
Here you guys go got it out of the 2008 rule book
General rules 184l... Foundation/Oversized Classification
Any horse permanently registered prior to Febuary 1, 1987 which has exceeded thirty-four [34] inches in height will be classified as Foundation/Oversized if the registration certificate of such horse is submitted to the association with the correct height. The correct height will be placed on the certificate and the certificate will be stamped "Foundation/Oversized" and foals will be eligible for registration from such horse. No horses may be qualified under the Foundation Clause after December 31, 1990.
General rules 184l... Foundation/Oversized Classification
Any horse permanently registered prior to Febuary 1, 1987 which has exceeded thirty-four [34] inches in height will be classified as Foundation/Oversized if the registration certificate of such horse is submitted to the association with the correct height. The correct height will be placed on the certificate and the certificate will be stamped "Foundation/Oversized" and foals will be eligible for registration from such horse. No horses may be qualified under the Foundation Clause after December 31, 1990.
uwharrie
Well-Known Member
With dogs ( AKC) any dog that is from registered parents can be registered. Many breeds have height disqualifications. ( as well as color, coat ect) Dogs over ( or under) the standard are still eligable for registrations as are thier offspring. however they cannot be shown due to the DQ.
The registry is just that a registry that provides proof the dog is purebred and has a pedigree. It does not guarantee quality.
I was somewhat amazed that with minis ( especially AMHA as they have a lower height) that you could buy a purebred foal only to have it no longer eligable because it grew 1/2 in. over.
I am not sure removing animals that are oversized from the registry is doing the breed any favors. I dont have a problem with allowing oversized animals, however breeders must be dilagent in working to bring size down while keeping quality.
I am not saying lie about it and keep oversized animals in.
I saw many small minis at a recent sale that i would never want in a breeding program, yep they were well under the max height but they also were short legged, dumpy looking. Little for little's sake is not the answer.
Now granted I have only been in minis a short while so take this as someone still looking in from the outside.
However I have been envolved with showing and breeding dogs for over 25 yrs, some with a height DQ and my main breed (IG) with a very narrow height standard (2 inches)
The showring is where you prove your breeding stock's quality. The registry is simply the paper trail ( pedigree)
The registry is just that a registry that provides proof the dog is purebred and has a pedigree. It does not guarantee quality.
I was somewhat amazed that with minis ( especially AMHA as they have a lower height) that you could buy a purebred foal only to have it no longer eligable because it grew 1/2 in. over.
I am not sure removing animals that are oversized from the registry is doing the breed any favors. I dont have a problem with allowing oversized animals, however breeders must be dilagent in working to bring size down while keeping quality.
I am not saying lie about it and keep oversized animals in.
I saw many small minis at a recent sale that i would never want in a breeding program, yep they were well under the max height but they also were short legged, dumpy looking. Little for little's sake is not the answer.
Now granted I have only been in minis a short while so take this as someone still looking in from the outside.
However I have been envolved with showing and breeding dogs for over 25 yrs, some with a height DQ and my main breed (IG) with a very narrow height standard (2 inches)
The showring is where you prove your breeding stock's quality. The registry is simply the paper trail ( pedigree)
Last edited by a moderator:
shelia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 572
- Reaction score
- 5
Thank you! I should probably go back and read the rule book! It may answer a lot of questions I have that I haven't asked on here yet.
Okay, so that means the youngest foundation horses would be 18. (well, most likely 23). They are pretty close to phased out. They have also closed hardshipping so from now on we will be able to follow the pedigre on all miniatures from this point forwad. (Well a point in the near future). This is quite a change from the past!
From what I see in some of these posts, some people are not ready to accept this and want to continue to use oversized horses in there breeding program even if they have to lie about the size. Where were these people when these rules were passed? Did they fight to stop it? Did they even know it was happening?
Do these rules seem to contradict the new proposed protested measuring rules?
It seems as though AMHA has reached a pivotal point and there are people on both sides of the fence about this. Now with the information I have, I still am not sure where I stand. (I guess I am still on the fence) I do believe in following the rules, but I am not sure that I agree that those rules should have been passed. I was a member when the hardshipping rule passed, but I was a new member and didn't know much about it untill it was all over. I accepted it without question.
I am thankful to be able to come here and see whats going on with AMHA. I am thankful to know that if something comes up that I am as passionate about as some of you are, I can present it here and get some support or at least be heard.
Okay, so that means the youngest foundation horses would be 18. (well, most likely 23). They are pretty close to phased out. They have also closed hardshipping so from now on we will be able to follow the pedigre on all miniatures from this point forwad. (Well a point in the near future). This is quite a change from the past!
From what I see in some of these posts, some people are not ready to accept this and want to continue to use oversized horses in there breeding program even if they have to lie about the size. Where were these people when these rules were passed? Did they fight to stop it? Did they even know it was happening?
Do these rules seem to contradict the new proposed protested measuring rules?
It seems as though AMHA has reached a pivotal point and there are people on both sides of the fence about this. Now with the information I have, I still am not sure where I stand. (I guess I am still on the fence) I do believe in following the rules, but I am not sure that I agree that those rules should have been passed. I was a member when the hardshipping rule passed, but I was a new member and didn't know much about it untill it was all over. I accepted it without question.
I am thankful to be able to come here and see whats going on with AMHA. I am thankful to know that if something comes up that I am as passionate about as some of you are, I can present it here and get some support or at least be heard.
disneyhorse
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,382
- Reaction score
- 192
LisaF... to answer your question YES you can show your miniature in AMHA and AMHR in the same year. Heck, you can show it on the same DAY if you want at the same SHOW. Neither Registry is aware of anything the other is doing pretty much.
I always thought that Miniature Breeding Stock was sort of a good idea. If not only because the animal could retain some "value" rather than become "grade." I think this is why lots of people register their miniatures at 34" or 38" even if they are taller... just to keep those papers and keep a "registered" animal rather than having a nicely conformed animal become just a random pet.
The Shetland Pony (from which the Miniature Horse came!!!) is a pure bred animal, so all Registered ponies keep their papers. Now, for SHOWING the height cutoff is just like miniatures, except it goes up to 46" tall. Now, if you go to a show and your pony measures the three times (protocol just like the miniatures) and can't get under 46" tall, well it just can't show. No danger of getting papers pulled or not being able to breed it, etc.
The Shetland Pony also allows for an additional Registry, the ASPR (Show Pony) that allows up to 48" tall, so some oversize Shetlands get the ASPR papers (it is $25 and the pony can either be of Shetland or Hackney breeding) and you can still go to the shows.
Wouldn't it be cool if the AMHA or AMHR had some Oversize classes?
Andrea
I always thought that Miniature Breeding Stock was sort of a good idea. If not only because the animal could retain some "value" rather than become "grade." I think this is why lots of people register their miniatures at 34" or 38" even if they are taller... just to keep those papers and keep a "registered" animal rather than having a nicely conformed animal become just a random pet.
The Shetland Pony (from which the Miniature Horse came!!!) is a pure bred animal, so all Registered ponies keep their papers. Now, for SHOWING the height cutoff is just like miniatures, except it goes up to 46" tall. Now, if you go to a show and your pony measures the three times (protocol just like the miniatures) and can't get under 46" tall, well it just can't show. No danger of getting papers pulled or not being able to breed it, etc.
The Shetland Pony also allows for an additional Registry, the ASPR (Show Pony) that allows up to 48" tall, so some oversize Shetlands get the ASPR papers (it is $25 and the pony can either be of Shetland or Hackney breeding) and you can still go to the shows.
Wouldn't it be cool if the AMHA or AMHR had some Oversize classes?
Andrea
JourneysEnd
Well-Known Member
Andrea, what about all the shetland crossing to hackneys ? The shetland thing really confuses me.
I do not breed anything, but I see a lot as a farrier - oversize breeding horses are the least of the problems out there.
In '84, when I discovered a miniature breeder 'within reach' of me and began visiting there, buying my first 'seed stock', the owner and I became friendly, and he confided that at EVERY farm he'd visited/bought from(several of the earliest/'biggest' names of the time), he'd seen goodly numbers of obviously oversized horses-mainly, mares. His stallions were ALL 'legal'( I know; I measured each and every one of the 8-10 he had originally)-- some even quite small, but he had FEW mares (he'd bought from a good number of those 'original' farms; I could tell you the names today) that weren't oversized. 'Talk' was, and still is, at least in some quarters, that this situation is not uncommon in the industry, even today.
I IMMEDIATELY invested in a measuring stick, so I could 'be sure' of what I bought(everything he had was for sale; though the farm was 'in the name' of his daughters, I always felt it was mostly about a tax write off, as he was quite 'well-off', financially-and had little horse knowledge.) One of the FIRST two mares I chose to buy measured EXACTLY 34"; she is still with me at age 26; she produced some of my best horses(none went oversized, to my knowledge, though there were a couple that I 'sweated'!), and is very dear to me!
One of the mares I bought and resold, as I improved my stock, was one I moved to Foundation Oversized. I did not keep her, but not because she was oversized.
I think those new to all this need to realize a couple of things---
First, that one shouldn't count completely on the heights listed on papers--or even that the horse you have now REALLY 'goes back' to' every horse that is listed. There was clearly a good bit of 'guesstimation' of height(or even, wishful thinking, IMO!)--and record-keeping(who was REALLY the sire of who, for instance)was sometimes also VERY 'casual'.Only with the full implementation of PQ'ing will that finally fade, I believe.
One of my personal practices when buying breeding stock that I planned to keep was to SEE at least the dam, and better still, both parents, with my own eyes(and if possible, measure them MYSELF...and I did so with pretty much every one I KEPT for breeding. This practice worked well for me.Anyone breeding miniatures needs to realize, though, that there is ALWAYS the possibility of a 'size surprise', IMO.
I am one who has ALWAYS favored a 'breeding stock', 'appendix', 'foundation oversize' ---division(for the offspring of two LEGAL height parents only)in both registries, and believe they have been foolish and short-sighted to refuse to establish such. Several serious proposals have been put forth over the years--ones with good parameters, such as: such horses may be bred, but ONLY to a provably LEGAL height mate, and then, the resulting offspring MUST be officially measured at the age decreed to be issued PERMANENT papers, and will only be 'fully' accepted in the registry upon that event. This is 'tough' enough that it should satisfy the naysayers, and has basically been proposed. I must add that the success of ANY SUCH PROGRAM would hinge on HONEST AND STRICTLY CORRECT MEASUREMENT, however!!!!!
To me, the terrible irony is that even well-designed proposals for such a division have been ruthlessly shot down, again and again, while at the same time, there seemed to be an increasing 'official sanction' for de facto having clearly OVERSIZED horses allowed to compete in shows, even at the highest level....
(and though my reference and experience here is AMHA, I have no doubt that many of the same issues plague AMHR.)
Margo
I IMMEDIATELY invested in a measuring stick, so I could 'be sure' of what I bought(everything he had was for sale; though the farm was 'in the name' of his daughters, I always felt it was mostly about a tax write off, as he was quite 'well-off', financially-and had little horse knowledge.) One of the FIRST two mares I chose to buy measured EXACTLY 34"; she is still with me at age 26; she produced some of my best horses(none went oversized, to my knowledge, though there were a couple that I 'sweated'!), and is very dear to me!
One of the mares I bought and resold, as I improved my stock, was one I moved to Foundation Oversized. I did not keep her, but not because she was oversized.
I think those new to all this need to realize a couple of things---
First, that one shouldn't count completely on the heights listed on papers--or even that the horse you have now REALLY 'goes back' to' every horse that is listed. There was clearly a good bit of 'guesstimation' of height(or even, wishful thinking, IMO!)--and record-keeping(who was REALLY the sire of who, for instance)was sometimes also VERY 'casual'.Only with the full implementation of PQ'ing will that finally fade, I believe.
One of my personal practices when buying breeding stock that I planned to keep was to SEE at least the dam, and better still, both parents, with my own eyes(and if possible, measure them MYSELF...and I did so with pretty much every one I KEPT for breeding. This practice worked well for me.Anyone breeding miniatures needs to realize, though, that there is ALWAYS the possibility of a 'size surprise', IMO.
I am one who has ALWAYS favored a 'breeding stock', 'appendix', 'foundation oversize' ---division(for the offspring of two LEGAL height parents only)in both registries, and believe they have been foolish and short-sighted to refuse to establish such. Several serious proposals have been put forth over the years--ones with good parameters, such as: such horses may be bred, but ONLY to a provably LEGAL height mate, and then, the resulting offspring MUST be officially measured at the age decreed to be issued PERMANENT papers, and will only be 'fully' accepted in the registry upon that event. This is 'tough' enough that it should satisfy the naysayers, and has basically been proposed. I must add that the success of ANY SUCH PROGRAM would hinge on HONEST AND STRICTLY CORRECT MEASUREMENT, however!!!!!
To me, the terrible irony is that even well-designed proposals for such a division have been ruthlessly shot down, again and again, while at the same time, there seemed to be an increasing 'official sanction' for de facto having clearly OVERSIZED horses allowed to compete in shows, even at the highest level....
(and though my reference and experience here is AMHA, I have no doubt that many of the same issues plague AMHR.)
Margo
Last edited by a moderator:
Dreaminmini - I didn't take anything you said personally. Yes, it is true that a horse is more likely to take after its heritage, as far as size and other attributes are concerned. In order to do selective breeding, including breeding for a certain height, you need to KNOW the TRUE heights of the parents and grandparents, etc. If people continue to keep and breed an AMHA horse that is 'over' the 34" limit, but never tell the horse's true height, then people will never know the truth about their horses heritage. Personally, I would like to know if a horse's parent was really 33.75" tall, or if it was 34.5". Then, I can decide if I there are enough things I like about a horse to make it worth the chance put it into a breeding program.
I know that a lot of good people will end up with oversize horses in their breeding programs and not turn in their papers. They aren't wanting to be cheaters, as they truly believe the horse will produce 'under' size foals. I think it happens in different ways. Some may just never bother to get an accurate measurement, so they just put the height down that they 'think' the horse is. Or, they may actually know that the horse is a little 'over', and justify not turning in papers because they 'know' that people are SHOWING horses that are over, and those people aren't turning in the papers. They also 'know' that the 'big guys' get their horses measured 'under', and they are sure their horse is no taller than those horses. They may even have been to an AMHA Annual Meeting, and heard how the Assosciation won't pull the papers on an oversize horse, even if it has been measured 'over' at a show. (Apparently, because people have not had papers taken away in the past, the precedent has been set, so AMHA can't start to do it now... Seems kind of crazy to me, but that's what the attorneys say.) So, again the 'honest' person rationalizes not taking the papers away from their horse, if AMHA won't do it to a horse they know is over, why should they. They may even decide that they won't apply for papers on any foals the horse produces unless they are sure that the foal will stay under. They may decide it is OK, as long as the horse is producing AMHA size foals.
There are also the financial aspects of turning in a horse's AMHA papers. Unless the horse has been registered with AMHR, once the horse no longer has AMHA papers, it becomes a 'grade' pony, with very little value, and potentially a very limited and unknown future. It can no longer stay with its 'registered' breeder, and is sold for a discounted price. And, even if the horse has or gets AMHR papers, depending on the area, an 'average' quality AMHR 'only' horse doesn't usually bring as much money as an 'average' quality AMHA horse. The horse will always have limited potential with its foals, as the foals will never be eligible for 'regular' AMHA papers.
There is even pressure from the breeder or a previous owner to not turn in the papers. I ended up buying a mare in a group. She turned out to be overheight. The person who foaled her out, raised her, and then later sold her after breeding her and selling her foals (knowing she was 'over') didn't want me to turn the mare's papers in. I wasn't comfortable breeding her, and ended up selling the mare to a nice family as a 'pet' for their two little girls. I sold her without her AMHA papers, but I didn't actually turn them in. The person asked me not to turn in the papers, as they didn't want the foals that had been registered from the mare having a 'revoked' oversize horse in the pedigree. So, I never turned the horse in. Maybe I should have, but I didn't, and haven't yet.
LisaF - The mare had her last foal at 25. I thought she had 'finished' after the foal she had at 23, as even after running with a stallion the next year, she wasn't in foal. So, I figured she was done, and left her with the stallion so he could have a companion. Then she surprised me with a healthy foal when she was 25. I noticed she was making a bag, so had her under camera and with a foaling monitor when she delivered.
I don't think that AMHA needs, at least at this time, to be considering 'show' classes for oversize horses. For them to consider that, they would have to have a 'separate' registry, and call the horses something 'other' than a miniature horse. I guess that would be similar to what the ASPR is, since it is for Shetlands that are too tall. The ponies in that division aren't considered 'Shetland' any more.
Shiela - Hardshipping into AMHA did/does allow a wider gene pool, but it doesn't really help to 'downsize' the horses, on the whole. To be hardshipped, all that matters is the size of the horse being hardshipped. It does't matter the size of the horse's parents. They could have been 40" tall, but the horse, for whatever reason, ended up being under 34'. So, that hardshipped horse is actually bringing in 'larger' genes to the pool. That is another reason why some people don't think they should turn in their horse's papers, as it doesn't seem right that a 34" horse with 40" parents can be hardshipped, when it is likely to produce oversize offspring, but their horse with both parents under 32", and is 34.5" tall is rejected by the registry, although genetically it is more likely to have foals that are under 34", than the hardshipped horse with a long history of tall horses in its pedigree. Plus, with the hardshipped horse, there is no history listed of the sizes, so a person really doesn't know what kind of genetics they are getting. (Of course, many hardshipped horses are already registered as AMHR and occasionally ASPC, but even then, the heights of the parents are not on the hardshipped horse's papers.)
This whole area is a topic that has strong feeling on all sides.
I know that a lot of good people will end up with oversize horses in their breeding programs and not turn in their papers. They aren't wanting to be cheaters, as they truly believe the horse will produce 'under' size foals. I think it happens in different ways. Some may just never bother to get an accurate measurement, so they just put the height down that they 'think' the horse is. Or, they may actually know that the horse is a little 'over', and justify not turning in papers because they 'know' that people are SHOWING horses that are over, and those people aren't turning in the papers. They also 'know' that the 'big guys' get their horses measured 'under', and they are sure their horse is no taller than those horses. They may even have been to an AMHA Annual Meeting, and heard how the Assosciation won't pull the papers on an oversize horse, even if it has been measured 'over' at a show. (Apparently, because people have not had papers taken away in the past, the precedent has been set, so AMHA can't start to do it now... Seems kind of crazy to me, but that's what the attorneys say.) So, again the 'honest' person rationalizes not taking the papers away from their horse, if AMHA won't do it to a horse they know is over, why should they. They may even decide that they won't apply for papers on any foals the horse produces unless they are sure that the foal will stay under. They may decide it is OK, as long as the horse is producing AMHA size foals.
There are also the financial aspects of turning in a horse's AMHA papers. Unless the horse has been registered with AMHR, once the horse no longer has AMHA papers, it becomes a 'grade' pony, with very little value, and potentially a very limited and unknown future. It can no longer stay with its 'registered' breeder, and is sold for a discounted price. And, even if the horse has or gets AMHR papers, depending on the area, an 'average' quality AMHR 'only' horse doesn't usually bring as much money as an 'average' quality AMHA horse. The horse will always have limited potential with its foals, as the foals will never be eligible for 'regular' AMHA papers.
There is even pressure from the breeder or a previous owner to not turn in the papers. I ended up buying a mare in a group. She turned out to be overheight. The person who foaled her out, raised her, and then later sold her after breeding her and selling her foals (knowing she was 'over') didn't want me to turn the mare's papers in. I wasn't comfortable breeding her, and ended up selling the mare to a nice family as a 'pet' for their two little girls. I sold her without her AMHA papers, but I didn't actually turn them in. The person asked me not to turn in the papers, as they didn't want the foals that had been registered from the mare having a 'revoked' oversize horse in the pedigree. So, I never turned the horse in. Maybe I should have, but I didn't, and haven't yet.
LisaF - The mare had her last foal at 25. I thought she had 'finished' after the foal she had at 23, as even after running with a stallion the next year, she wasn't in foal. So, I figured she was done, and left her with the stallion so he could have a companion. Then she surprised me with a healthy foal when she was 25. I noticed she was making a bag, so had her under camera and with a foaling monitor when she delivered.
I don't think that AMHA needs, at least at this time, to be considering 'show' classes for oversize horses. For them to consider that, they would have to have a 'separate' registry, and call the horses something 'other' than a miniature horse. I guess that would be similar to what the ASPR is, since it is for Shetlands that are too tall. The ponies in that division aren't considered 'Shetland' any more.
Shiela - Hardshipping into AMHA did/does allow a wider gene pool, but it doesn't really help to 'downsize' the horses, on the whole. To be hardshipped, all that matters is the size of the horse being hardshipped. It does't matter the size of the horse's parents. They could have been 40" tall, but the horse, for whatever reason, ended up being under 34'. So, that hardshipped horse is actually bringing in 'larger' genes to the pool. That is another reason why some people don't think they should turn in their horse's papers, as it doesn't seem right that a 34" horse with 40" parents can be hardshipped, when it is likely to produce oversize offspring, but their horse with both parents under 32", and is 34.5" tall is rejected by the registry, although genetically it is more likely to have foals that are under 34", than the hardshipped horse with a long history of tall horses in its pedigree. Plus, with the hardshipped horse, there is no history listed of the sizes, so a person really doesn't know what kind of genetics they are getting. (Of course, many hardshipped horses are already registered as AMHR and occasionally ASPC, but even then, the heights of the parents are not on the hardshipped horse's papers.)
This whole area is a topic that has strong feeling on all sides.
shelia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 572
- Reaction score
- 5
Actually my hardshipping comment probably did not belong because I was actually thinking of one horse whose parents are both well within size and he is quite small. I agree that it does make it hard to judge when you don't know the sizes of the background. I am sure that is why AMHA made the rule. The rule has to apply to all horses and not just a few.
I think over the years AMHA has produced some very nice horses even without all of these rules. It got us where we are today. It took people who cared about quality and the standard of perfection. I don't think that has changed. I think AMHA is evolving and wanting to raise the bar now. They feel we no longer need oversized stock or any new horses brought in. I am just not sure if we were ready for that quite yet.
I do know that you really can't rely on much from the pedigre of most of them right now and that is changing. That part I do agree with. The sire, grandparents ect. is important!I do like the smaller minis, however I do have a few that are right up there pretty close to 34. If I don't get smaller foals from them then I probably won't keep them.
I guess I am still on the fence about this.
I think over the years AMHA has produced some very nice horses even without all of these rules. It got us where we are today. It took people who cared about quality and the standard of perfection. I don't think that has changed. I think AMHA is evolving and wanting to raise the bar now. They feel we no longer need oversized stock or any new horses brought in. I am just not sure if we were ready for that quite yet.
I do know that you really can't rely on much from the pedigre of most of them right now and that is changing. That part I do agree with. The sire, grandparents ect. is important!I do like the smaller minis, however I do have a few that are right up there pretty close to 34. If I don't get smaller foals from them then I probably won't keep them.
I guess I am still on the fence about this.
Charley
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,048
- Reaction score
- 271
I had a mare that I was considering sending in the papers. She was a really nice horse, just taller than I was used to.
I had my farrier out and had her trimmed normally with the rest of our herd. She measured under by 1/4 of an inch that day. I did send in for her permanent papers and when I sold her (downsized and sold ten of my horses that year) I told the purchaser how I did not trust my measuring on one that close and had my farrier there to help hold her still while I measured and then I held her still while she measured. If she had measured over by either of us, I would have turned her papers in. She was the only horse we ever had that was close to the maximum height.
I had my farrier out and had her trimmed normally with the rest of our herd. She measured under by 1/4 of an inch that day. I did send in for her permanent papers and when I sold her (downsized and sold ten of my horses that year) I told the purchaser how I did not trust my measuring on one that close and had my farrier there to help hold her still while I measured and then I held her still while she measured. If she had measured over by either of us, I would have turned her papers in. She was the only horse we ever had that was close to the maximum height.
LisaF - I sold the mare to the people as a pet for their little girls. They knew her exact height, and that her AMHA papers did not go with her. She went to a non-breeding home. What I did not do is return the papers to the registry. I just kept them, and never transferred her with AMHA to the new owners, so she can never produce any AMHA foals, as I would have to sign the paperwork, and I'm not going to.
The person who asked me not to turn in the papers was not the person I sold the horse to, but the breeder of the mare, the previous owner. The people who bought the horse from me didn't care about papers. There wasn't anyone who owned any of that mare's foals that didn't know about the height of the mare.
This was all quite a few years ago now, and I have learned a lot since then. I could turn them in now, but I don't even know if I could find them, and I don't think at this time it would make any difference.
The person who asked me not to turn in the papers was not the person I sold the horse to, but the breeder of the mare, the previous owner. The people who bought the horse from me didn't care about papers. There wasn't anyone who owned any of that mare's foals that didn't know about the height of the mare.
This was all quite a few years ago now, and I have learned a lot since then. I could turn them in now, but I don't even know if I could find them, and I don't think at this time it would make any difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
dreaminmini
Well-Known Member
This is actually quite interesting, I'm learning more and more of the history of this registry.
I would think that maybe instead of turning in the papers could we not have the papers be marked as "over", therefore the pedigree is still known on a horse for future owners should the horse be sold and also allowing the owners the chance to register it with the AMHR.
Both registries are fairly young and there are sure to be growing pains and differences in opinion. If there seems to be the need for new lines in the AMHA mini maybe it can be looked into opening the breeding to oversize mares where they do not exceed, for example, 35" and either something like the parents must have been under, or the resulting offspring should it go over would not be eligible for breeding on the basis of perpetuating more oversize.
What about using this idea partially from the dog side of things, but have the parents be shown at x# of shows to collect points and then be given a Champion designation (could use a different title) on their name by the registry, then it is showing that it should be of proper height because they are measured at shows and over a number of different times and different people. Horses of this caliber should be able to command more money, and more people should/would want to use them for breeding as they have a more proven background.
This maybe way beyond but...thinking outside the box
I would think that maybe instead of turning in the papers could we not have the papers be marked as "over", therefore the pedigree is still known on a horse for future owners should the horse be sold and also allowing the owners the chance to register it with the AMHR.
Both registries are fairly young and there are sure to be growing pains and differences in opinion. If there seems to be the need for new lines in the AMHA mini maybe it can be looked into opening the breeding to oversize mares where they do not exceed, for example, 35" and either something like the parents must have been under, or the resulting offspring should it go over would not be eligible for breeding on the basis of perpetuating more oversize.
What about using this idea partially from the dog side of things, but have the parents be shown at x# of shows to collect points and then be given a Champion designation (could use a different title) on their name by the registry, then it is showing that it should be of proper height because they are measured at shows and over a number of different times and different people. Horses of this caliber should be able to command more money, and more people should/would want to use them for breeding as they have a more proven background.
This maybe way beyond but...thinking outside the box
Last edited by a moderator:
JourneysEnd
Well-Known Member
Hey Lisa F - You figured out the quote thing ! !
Alright.
Alright.
Lewella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 1,729
- Reaction score
- 17
The ASPC has been closed to outcrossing to Hackney for over a decade. The Hackney crosses go in ASPR
Andrea brings up a good point when she mentions that Shetlands that go oversize are still registeed because ASPC x ASPC = ASPC. Several years ago the Texas courts decided that AQHA x AQHA = AQHA and AQHA had no option but to change several rules because of this including the excessive white rule or end up in court again. If AMHA becomes a closed breed registry they may have no legal option but to accept the oversize horses for registration.
As someone already stated -- the show officials and judges keep letting obviously oversized horses show and win at sanctioned shows If the show ring is supposed to be the place where the minis quality and value is assessed I would say the message clearly is "Cheat if u have enough influence/power/money to get away with it"
For the record I think AMHA SHOULD have a division for over 34" horses. Losing their reg. papers sets the poor horse up for a miserable life. I have many 34 inch minis that when bred to another 34" mini only produce foals that top out at 31" or much less. Im AMHR you see many B sized minis produce tiny foals. And it works the other way too. Sometimes 2 tiny minis produce a big honkin foal. Thats just genetics.
For the record I think AMHA SHOULD have a division for over 34" horses. Losing their reg. papers sets the poor horse up for a miserable life. I have many 34 inch minis that when bred to another 34" mini only produce foals that top out at 31" or much less. Im AMHR you see many B sized minis produce tiny foals. And it works the other way too. Sometimes 2 tiny minis produce a big honkin foal. Thats just genetics.
JourneysEnd
Well-Known Member
Lewella,
Never heard it explained like that, makes sense.
I don't breed em, I just shoe em.
Never heard it explained like that, makes sense.
I don't breed em, I just shoe em.
faithfarm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 0
I also agree with allowing oversized AMHA horses to keep their papers and be used for BREEDING ONLY. Many of these horses have pedigrees that are 5 or 6 generations or more of AMHA registered horses that did not measure over but the oversized gene pops up occasionally. That horse is still the prodigy of those generations of AMHA horses and should not be tossed out of the registry. By allowing the "oversized breeding stock" to remain in the registry, it allows a larger gene pool and also allows the honest breeder to compete with those who breed those taller more refined horses.
I doubt that the oversized horses will fetch the same prices as those that fit the standards but at least they can still have a useful purpose and not become grade ponies. The positive results would be that by allowing oversized stock to remain in the registry it is good for the breeder, good for the buyer (honest measurements on horses), good for the association (increased income) and good for the horse (I hate selling pets because I always worry about their treatment when the new wears off).
I personally know of a mare that measures over 34" that produces beautiful foals everytime that never go over; call me dishonest if you like, but if she was for sale I would buy her and breed her.
Rick
I doubt that the oversized horses will fetch the same prices as those that fit the standards but at least they can still have a useful purpose and not become grade ponies. The positive results would be that by allowing oversized stock to remain in the registry it is good for the breeder, good for the buyer (honest measurements on horses), good for the association (increased income) and good for the horse (I hate selling pets because I always worry about their treatment when the new wears off).
I personally know of a mare that measures over 34" that produces beautiful foals everytime that never go over; call me dishonest if you like, but if she was for sale I would buy her and breed her.
Rick
LisaF - Some people see things only in black and white, while other people tend to view the world with some shades of gray. Both types of people feel their way of looking at things is 'right'. I understand that not everyone will agree with me, and I won't agree with everything other people say or do. That doesn't mean I won't stand up for what I believe in, but I also accept that not everyone sees the world the same way as I do. I can't get upset about, I can only do what I feel is right for me.
Michelle@wescofarms
Well-Known Member
You know Lewella this could be a precedent that would force AMHA into allowing oversized breeding stock if an individual or group with enough $$ and a good lawyer chose to pursue.
Andrea brings up a good point when she mentions that Shetlands that go oversize are still registeed because ASPC x ASPC = ASPC. Several years ago the Texas courts decided that AQHA x AQHA = AQHA and AQHA had no option but to change several rules because of this including the excessive white rule or end up in court again. If AMHA becomes a closed breed registry they may have no legal option but to accept the oversize horses for registration.
I've seen horse's sold/bred by AMHA Board members, judges and other executive members as well as a number of prominent breeders that have the 'taller' AMHA horses. It's very naive to think this doesn't go on at all levels.
I've revoked paperwork on four of our AMHA minis to date (all are AMHR already and two had parents that are 29-30"). I also have a couple that are older that float in the gray zone of 34". Am I going to turn in their papers - nope! I'm not shooting myself in the foot to be a martyr to prove a point. I do my best and live with it. All foals that are born here at birth that are destined to be B size are not registered AMHA. Any horse sold a truthful discussion on my educated guesstitmate of height is held. I had someone from Europe recently inquire about one of our foals. I told them in all honesty I thought he'd be 33" but I wouldn't be comfortable selling a horse to them that might exceed the height limit and he'd be a bit far to return! I'd rather blow a deal than lie.
Not to say two wrongs don't make a right but while you sit at an AMHA Convention and listen to some of these people stand up and talk about integrity of the breed that I've seen their horses measured . . . give me a break. A foundation, oversize, appendix breeding stock registry would make everyone legal. I'm sure the same things go on with AMHR, I'm just not as familiar with the dynamics of that organization.
Too me the oversized stock this is the counterpoint to the other unspeakable - 'it doesn't happen at my farm' point which is dwarfism. No one wants to admit they have too talls or too smalls.
/sigh
Andrea brings up a good point when she mentions that Shetlands that go oversize are still registeed because ASPC x ASPC = ASPC. Several years ago the Texas courts decided that AQHA x AQHA = AQHA and AQHA had no option but to change several rules because of this including the excessive white rule or end up in court again. If AMHA becomes a closed breed registry they may have no legal option but to accept the oversize horses for registration.
I've seen horse's sold/bred by AMHA Board members, judges and other executive members as well as a number of prominent breeders that have the 'taller' AMHA horses. It's very naive to think this doesn't go on at all levels.
I've revoked paperwork on four of our AMHA minis to date (all are AMHR already and two had parents that are 29-30"). I also have a couple that are older that float in the gray zone of 34". Am I going to turn in their papers - nope! I'm not shooting myself in the foot to be a martyr to prove a point. I do my best and live with it. All foals that are born here at birth that are destined to be B size are not registered AMHA. Any horse sold a truthful discussion on my educated guesstitmate of height is held. I had someone from Europe recently inquire about one of our foals. I told them in all honesty I thought he'd be 33" but I wouldn't be comfortable selling a horse to them that might exceed the height limit and he'd be a bit far to return! I'd rather blow a deal than lie.
Not to say two wrongs don't make a right but while you sit at an AMHA Convention and listen to some of these people stand up and talk about integrity of the breed that I've seen their horses measured . . . give me a break. A foundation, oversize, appendix breeding stock registry would make everyone legal. I'm sure the same things go on with AMHR, I'm just not as familiar with the dynamics of that organization.
Too me the oversized stock this is the counterpoint to the other unspeakable - 'it doesn't happen at my farm' point which is dwarfism. No one wants to admit they have too talls or too smalls.
/sigh
