"Miniture" Breeding Stock

[MSRminis]

Breeding aside, what about the geldings that go over? OK, so they cant show but now unless they are in AMHR too they are now worthless. I have a gelding that I thought was a bit tall when I bought him-but dont show and I cant breed him so didnt mind. I think he is clearly oversize when I see him out with the others and will be purchasing a mini measuring stick as it is hard to use a tape measurer all by yourself!! So if this guy measures over 34, although I can t breed him, and now cant show him, I have to rip up his papers and his lineage and call him a grade pony? I think that is sad. I would much rather have him stamped OVER or transfered to a BREEDING STOCK (even though hes a gelding) and let him keep the proof that he was bred an AMHA REGISTERED miniature horse.

 

[gvpalominominis]

Andrea, what about all the shetland crossing to hackneys ? The shetland thing really confuses me.

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 agree with Lewella on the legal aspect due to case law and in a common sense evaluation. Looking at it in another view... IMO, if AMHA closes its registry and doesn't have a "breeding" stock allowance for retention of papers for oversized AMHA registered horses, the registry could eventually end up with inferior animals. Let me clarify that for those who always try to read between the lines to start the drama. ..... If a breeder concentrates only on one character of a horse... say in my case... Palomino colored horses... only breed to them etc. .. I would be limiting my gene pool selection. What if that "PERFECT HORSE" happens to be 34-1/8th"....both parents are 32-33" and has a long line of AMHA registered pedigree full of great horses. What I'm hearing... some of you would say "OMG take its papers away" .... my theory... is an old one.... some rules may be made to be broken and its time to change them. Further clarification... I'm not saying I'm retaining papers on oversized horses... I haven't had to - I'm saying maybe its time to change the rule for the betterment. I'm also not saying smaller horses are inferior.... I still have a few!!! But eventually horses die, become sterile, etc., so unless there are great ones to replace the great ones... you end up with inferior stock. I hate to break it to you.. but some of the current GREAT producing ones are over 34" and still AMHA!

Times change, for heavens sakes open your minds to see the broader picture. I care about the outcome of these horses future. I want them to continually improve and flourish regardless if they are 28" or 38"... and I'm NOT inferring that you don't... I'm just making a general statement of how I feel.

Believe me with the international push... we have a lot more troubles brewing than you are probably even aware!

 

[ohmt]

I personally think AMHA should definitely make it so horses over 34" can obtain breeding stock papers. I do NOT think they should be able to be shown but for those of us who do like to breed taller 'A' stallions to taller 'A' mares, it would be nice to have that security. I DO have quite a few mares in the 33"-34" range that I breed to my 34" stallion. This year I have a GORGEOUS bay appaloosa filly that is going to mature in the 33"-35" range. I'm not sure yet...she has incredibly long legs and I haven't had the chance to measure her recently though she was born 22.5" with 8" cannons. She is ONLY AMHA registered but I feel that her confirmation and pedigree is far better than at least half of the AMHA registered horses out there. Is it my fault for breeding a 33.5" mare to a 34" stallion? YES. Is it also my fault that her confirmation came from my feelings and assessment that her sire and dam would compliment each other and produce a high quality foal? YES. She will stay with me until next year...If I feel she will mature under I will sell her but if she will go over then I will keep her until she's 3 and hardship her into AMHR and then turn in her AMHA papers. Then AMHA would be losing a quality filly to AMHR.

I think that farms have actually gotten A LOT better about being honest with heights and turning in AMHA papers. 20 years ago it was VERY common to find that most of a farm's mares were over. My great grandfather's were...the ARC horses. He was of course honest about heights if they were under and probably half of them were, but the other half definitely were not. He had a bunch of chestnut mares that were AMHA/AMHR that I called the Big Reds. It was because he went around buying ponies from sales and backyards and then registered them when the registries were open. He had a very good eye and every single mare he had was drop dead gorgeous. But they were BIG! He had smaller stallions except one who was about 35" and yep...AMHA/AMHR registered. He bred that stallion and those big red mares together and almost every single foal stayed under. Those foals went all over the world and were/are bred to some of the best horses in the breed of AMHA. The First Knight horses....check out their pedigrees with ARC Lollipop who was bred from two 'B' sized horses. My mares?? EVERY SINGLE ONE has ARC somewhere except a couple that I've bought recently. I only have one mare that is 'B' sized and she is only AMHR-I turned in her AMHA papers. She has given me ALL 'A' sized foals (she's only 34.5") bred to 33"-37" stallions. This year's filly is the only filly I've had in the last 10 years that I've been nervous about height. But I have noticed lately that with AMHR's over classes becoming popular that many people are honest about heights and many more farms breed for just 'B' sized horses. There are still people that lie but it HAS gotten better.