My take on the height situation..

[Laura]

*In my opinion* The original method of method of measurement of the last hairs of the mane, was meant to give every, well, inch possible to allow horses to be measured in as a mini.

Again, in my opinion, the idea of measuring at the withers (like the rest of the normal equine world) is unattractive to AMHA and AMHR, because it will mean one of two things.

A-changing the maximum allowed AMHA height to 36" to allow for horses that previously measured under height, but now would not to be "grandfathered" in or to be eligible to be shown/bred. AMHR would also face the same challenges, raising the height to about 40".

B-NOT changing the height, effectively eliminating SIGINIFICANT percentage of future stock that *would* have measured under 34" or 38". Do we renew AMHA's old "Foundation Oversize" broodstock program, which has now been almost completely eliminated?

ANY CHANGE is the method of measurement, including the INSANE one just approved by AMHA is a nightmare in the making either way, for horses already registered and for future stock. Who's in and who's out? Are horses who went over their papers when measured at the last hairs of the mane, but will measure in at the withers "dip" to be allowed to regain their papers? Who decides that and then regulates it?

The new "dip" program is a band-aid on a serious wound in my opinion and will only cause more confusion.

***************

My opinion-

Horses are horses and should be measured as such, at the withers.

Both associations should raise their height allowance by 2" to allow for a difference in MEASURED height.

Any horse with proven registered parentage (presumably by DNA) that falls under the new height guidelines is eligible for registration (or to be made permanent if on expired Temp. papers). Eliminate "over and under" horses and show horses in properly divided height groups.

For measurement, set up a square arch at each height division increment and if the horse's withers hit it when it is pushed over the withers or the horse walks under it, it's too tall, period, end of story!

*****************

Do I think most people would have an absolute fit at my ideas?

******************

AMHR, by having official show stewards does have a few more failsafes when measuring at shows. Is it foolproof and are all stewards completely honest people? Of course not, but the majority *ARE* and I know some AWESOME, honorable stewards! It's the minority that creates the problems.

Are there very obviously overheight horses being shown? Absolutely, it's a serious issue! Until handlers, owners and the person HOLDING THE MEASURING STICK are held severely to account for intentionally showing an oversize animal or falsifying a measurement, it will continue.

This whole new proposed system of measurement for AMHA makes me think they just started shoveling and that they better stop digging before they bury themselves

**********************************

It's just my opinion folks, lets hear yours

 

[hobbyhorse23]

I think...that's an excellent post!

Does anyone actually have any concrete data yet on the difference in measured heights between The Dip method, the last hairs, and the top of the withers?? I'd like to see an effort made to gather that data from as many horses as possible of various conformational types and sizes to get a feel for how much of a difference there really is in a statistically significant manner. Then perhaps we'd have more than a guess to work with as to how much this would/will affect our horses.

Perhaps we can start that data collection at the NWMHC measuring clinic this weekend in WA. I know I will be asking someone to measure all three locations on my gelding and hopefully others will follow suit and post the results here.

Leia

 

[Leeana]

I agree with you 99.9% but there is no way your going to get AMHA to raise their height limit LOL. Even for this instance. Even though a 36" horse at the withers may be the same height as a 34" at the bottom of the withers OH!

But why cant we just leave things as they were before? I really have no problem at all measuring at the last hairs ...we can save ourselves all this hassle by just letting it be!

 

[Laura]

I think...that's an excellent post!

Does anyone actually have any concrete data yet on the difference in measured heights between The Dip method, the last hairs, and the top of the withers?? I'd like to see an effort made to gather that data from as many horses as possible of various conformational types and sizes to get a feel for how much of a difference there really is in a statistically significant manner. Then perhaps we'd have more than a guess to work with as to how much this would/will affect our horses.

Perhaps we can start that data collection at the NWMHC measuring clinic this weekend in WA. I know I will be asking someone to measure all three locations on my gelding and hopefully others will follow suit and post the results here.

Leia

Thanks

I'd love to get some measurements, but since the surgery on my feet last week, I'm banned from even getting NEAR the horses for a few more weeks...dangit! I'm certainly looking forward to seeing the comparisons as people post them!

 

[R3]

You left off C:

Measure at the heighest point of the wither and then pick a date that all horses born before that date are 'grandfathered'. If they measure 'over' at the top of the withers, but still measure 34" or less at the last hair, they would be OK.

Example, and what I have proposed: Change the measuring spot to the highest point of the withers. It is voted on in 2009, it would be effective in 2010. Start measuring all horses at the new method. But, any horse born before 2015 would still have full breeding and showing rights, even if it measures more than 34" at the top of the withers, as long at it does not exceed 34" at the last hair of the mane. This would allow breeders time to change their breeding program to adjust for the fact that horses born after 2015 would be under the more stringent measuring standard.

Yes, in a way, it is like the old Foundation Oversize. The difference is that the horses being grandfathered are not 'oversize' in that they do not exceed the height standards for the time in which they were born and bred.

Additionally, the grandfathered horses would still be allowed to breed and show. For all height divisions horses must be measured by the new 'highest point of the withers' to fit into their height division, the only exception would be the tallest height division, as that would be the division where the grandfathered horses would show.

It would actually benefit the grandfathered (taller) horses, not hurt them, as they would be the tallest animals in their classes. In time, these grandfathered horses would be seen less and less in the showring. Their numbers would eventually dwindle and disappear.

No harm is done to any currently permanently registered horse or any juvenile horse who was born and bred while the height was measured at the last hair of the mane. The Association does not have to renounce their standards and register horses that are taller than they are right now.

Also, Option C is the best as it brings the American Miniature Horse into line with the standards that have been set around the world. That 34" at the highest point of the withers used for foreign registries is the 'honest' way to have a 34" inch or less miniature horse, and that, along with their quality, has been what gives the American miniature horse its value.

I think that Option C, is a very viable solution. But, it won't do any good to stop the problems with height protests, unless the Assocation becomes serious about the abuses that occur when horses are measured. We have been allowing horses to be stretched and straddled out. We have allowed handlers to push and pull on the horses heads and backs to get them to drop lower when they are being measured. To get accurate heights, these procedures must be stopped.

 

[Warpony]

It's just my opinion folks, lets hear yours

I agree with you.

As an aside... I was discussing this with some friends of mine (big horse people) and you should hear what they have to say.

We were already a joke to them, now they are laughing even harder. And my overseas friends who ARE miniature people? Sheesh. They want to know what we are smoking over here to come up with these ideas.

None of them can understand why we don't just measure like EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET and adjust maximum height accordingly.

My only explanation for them is that apparently it will make our horses "sound" taller.

 

[Suzie]

You can't make everyone happy but I would go for top of the withers and just raise the heights to 36" to get in all those that it throws into the gray area. At least we could get a place to measure that everyone can find, especially the big horse people who are beginning to come into the mini horse world now more and more.

I really think the future of this industry is going to the slightly larger horses, you can do a lot more with them for the general "non-showing" public and with gas prices skyrocketing, traveling all over the country to compete in shows is going to have to take a backseat for many Americans. Like all good breeds, we MUST follow where the future leads or die in the dust.

Like it or not, we DO need to care what the Europeans think......the value of the dollar is declining against the Euro-making horses here very attractive financially to them now. If we continue to refuse to go with accepted measurements that they can rely on, we are cutting ourselves out of a BIG market and at a time we really can't afford to do that. We are NOT an isolated island here anymore, we are part of a global community.

Let's just bite the bullet, measure where everyone else does and raise the height 2 inches. It will only hurt ONCE. With this new STUPID measurement, YOU KNOW this will not last- if 50% of the membership (includes me) can't find the "sweet spot" to measure, this will have to come up for change eventually again. Why change and change and have to hash this out again???????

For me, if this passes, I will go with AMHR only as far as dues to the registry every year. My horses are all double registered but way under AMHR heights of 34. I will breed and sell,but advertise as AMHR only and let the new owners fight it out with AMHA is they so choose. I am not going to risk selling an AMHA horse and maybe measuring incorrectly and having a buyer end up mad because their horse is not what they bought.....

 

[targetsmom]

Just my thoughts: I am a big believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but I see two things about the existing AMHA measuring system that ARE broke:

1. AMHA (& AMHR) doesn't measure at the same place every other horse breed does,

2. The current system makes it fairly easy to "cheat" by training the horse to drop their backs, adding "mane" hair, trimming hooves way too short, and probably a whole bunch of other things I would never even think of.

As far as I can see, this new rule does not address EITHER of these issues.

Thus I am in favor of measuring at the withers, which addresses point # 1 above, and some of #2. But instead of changing the maximum height allowed, I would rather see a second measurement that subtracts the height of the heel. I would hope this would halt the practice of trimming the feet down to nothing to get the horse to measure as short as possible, thus addressing another part of #2.

I would love to see some actual measurements at all the places proposed. I would guess that the heights using the method proposed here would be fairly close to the current heights, so that perhaps no change in the maximum allowable height would be needed (long term - perhaps some grandfathering short term).

And, yes, no matter what measuring system is employed, it must be done right!! There must be accountability.

 

[Laura]

[SIZE=12pt]I'm loving the responses everyone. You have great ideas and sound, well considered reasoning! Way to go![/SIZE]

 

[Nathan Luszcz]

Options A, B, and C all make sense to me! I find it interesting that if the AMHR opened their books again that my pony would be able to be hardshipped with this paticular rule, because he's built so horse-like as to have proper and defined withers, making him "too tall" to be a proper mini. But, with this new method of measuring, all of a sudden my awesome pony is an awesome mini again, lol. That's okay, I'm happy with my PtHA papers, they are much more stable and accepted than AMHA/R papers!

 

[Lisa Strass]

You left off C:

Measure at the heighest point of the wither and then pick a date that all horses born before that date are 'grandfathered'. If they measure 'over' at the top of the withers, but still measure 34" or less at the last hair, they would be OK.

Example, and what I have proposed: Change the measuring spot to the highest point of the withers. It is voted on in 2009, it would be effective in 2010. Start measuring all horses at the new method. But, any horse born before 2015 would still have full breeding and showing rights, even if it measures more than 34" at the top of the withers, as long at it does not exceed 34" at the last hair of the mane. This would allow breeders time to change their breeding program to adjust for the fact that horses born after 2015 would be under the more stringent measuring standard.

Yes, in a way, it is like the old Foundation Oversize. The difference is that the horses being grandfathered are not 'oversize' in that they do not exceed the height standards for the time in which they were born and bred.

Additionally, the grandfathered horses would still be allowed to breed and show. For all height divisions horses must be measured by the new 'highest point of the withers' to fit into their height division, the only exception would be the tallest height division, as that would be the division where the grandfathered horses would show.

It would actually benefit the grandfathered (taller) horses, not hurt them, as they would be the tallest animals in their classes. In time, these grandfathered horses would be seen less and less in the showring. Their numbers would eventually dwindle and disappear.

No harm is done to any currently permanently registered horse or any juvenile horse who was born and bred while the height was measured at the last hair of the mane. The Association does not have to renounce their standards and register horses that are taller than they are right now.

Also, Option C is the best as it brings the American Miniature Horse into line with the standards that have been set around the world. That 34" at the highest point of the withers used for foreign registries is the 'honest' way to have a 34" inch or less miniature horse, and that, along with their quality, has been what gives the American miniature horse its value.

I think that Option C, is a very viable solution. But, it won't do any good to stop the problems with height protests, unless the Assocation becomes serious about the abuses that occur when horses are measured. We have been allowing horses to be stretched and straddled out. We have allowed handlers to push and pull on the horses heads and backs to get them to drop lower when they are being measured. To get accurate heights, these procedures must be stopped.

I really like Option C and think both A and R should consider it! It does not change any of the defined standards already in place and gives time for breeders to make adjustments to their programs. Thank you for thinking this through, and I would love to see it implemented someday!

 

[Marty]

Is anyone out there bothering to listen to ALLISON at all?

She seems to be the only one that is consistantly trying to say QUIT LYING AND CHEATING!!!!!!!!!!!

You want to see horses measured in right with no cheating? Then hire ME to go to the shows and measure cause frankly I don't give a rats patutti who is who and I don't brown nose or suck up or take bribes and kiss nobodys rearend and I'll measure those horses in honestly. If you are under you're in and if you are over you're out case closed period shut up and go home if you don't like it and buy a smaller horse. This is complete and utter non-sense that has gone on way too long.

If people would just be honest about it and measure at the last mane hair without all the stupid idiotic cheating methods, there would be no problem in the first place.

Raising the height limit to 36" in just plain ridiculous. There are still many people here that want to see minis 34 and under and preserve the breed that way. Not everyone wants to jump on the ASPC AMHR taller horse bandwagon.

I do think the way to go is to measure at the withers like every other breed.

 

[Buckskin gal]

For the most part I do agree with Marty. This whole thing came about because of cheating!!!!!! Someone tried to do something about having a better site to measure from and is now being hatefully spoke of!!! It is all so ridiculous beyond words!!! Someone tried and has failed according to a whole lot of other people....wonder where they were when all this was going on IF they really cared. SO MUCH BASHING AND SO LITTLE COMMENTS OF HOW TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT! I do believe this wa an attempt to find a way to measure with less cheating because we all were hollering about the cheating going on. I THINK IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL IF BOTH REGISTERIES WOULD ALLOW VOTING BY ALL MEMBERS OF EACH ASSOCIATION. we have been down the road with AMHR and ran into the blocks now it is AMHAs turn to be bashed for not doing things right. Each and every person who doesn't like the way things are need to get ahold of their area rep and let them know how they want things and each rep needs to keep track of who is for what so they can represent the majority...that is until all members can vote. And ask yourswelf, did you send back the forms that were sent to you where you could vote on your reps? Me thnks some just like to complain and bash a regisitery they may not be truly interested in! Mary

Is anyone out there bothering to listen to ALLISON at all?

She seems to be the only one that is consistantly trying to say QUIT LYING AND CHEATING!!!!!!!!!!!

You want to see horses measured in right with no cheating? Then hire ME to go to the shows and measure cause frankly I don't give a rats patutti who is who and I don't brown nose or suck up or take bribes and kiss nobodys rearend and I'll measure those horses in honestly. If you are under you're in and if you are over you're out case closed period shut up and go home if you don't like it and buy a smaller horse. This is complete and utter non-sense that has gone on way too long.

If people would just be honest about it and measure at the last mane hair without all the stupid idiotic cheating methods, there would be no problem in the first place.

Raising the height limit to 36" in just plain ridiculous. There are still many people here that want to see minis 34 and under and preserve the breed that way. Not everyone wants to jump on the ASPC AMHR taller horse bandwagon.

I do think the way to go is to measure at the withers like every other breed.

 

[Shari]

I very much agree with everything you said Laura.

Would also be very happy to add my mini's measurements to the pot so to speak. Because it is quite a range measuring from dip, to last hair, to top of the withers. Sure others out there have the same issues.

As for those who cheat... no matter how a horse is measured, there are ways to cheat. That is not going to change,,,sad to say.

 

[hobbyhorse23]

Raising the height limit to 36" in just plain ridiculous. There are still many people here that want to see minis 34 and under and preserve the breed that way. Not everyone wants to jump on the ASPC AMHR taller horse bandwagon.
I do think the way to go is to measure at the withers like every other breed.

I agree with you Marty but want to clarify that raising the height limit in conjunction with measuring a higher point doesn't mean letting in bigger horses. These are the same horses that are under 34" at the last hair just like they've always been. They just measure a little bigger at a higher point. (Again, like they always have if only anyone had been measuring.)

I personally like that very well thought-out Option C that has been mentioned. I also agree that getting some gosh darn HONESTY in measuring whatever point would get to the root of the problem. I'm still in favor of the withers but wouldn't mind staying with the last mane hair either if measuring practices were enforced properly. But this new method is insane! It makes whether you have the "right spot" or not even MORE subjective, allows in TALLER horses instead of effectively lowering the height limit, and STILL messes up the status quo! How nuts is that??

SO MUCH BASHING AND SO LITTLE COMMENTS OF HOW TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT!

Buckskin Gal, you'll notice this was a productive thread. You're the only one here suddenly ranting and pinning blame instead of offering solutions. Hypocritical, much?

You're right- I'm not an AMHA member (because of this sort of thing) and I really DON'T care. But the sheer fallacy of the argument for this change annoys me and as someone who DOES care about the reputation of the miniature horse within the large horse world YES, I consider myself involved! It's hard enough not to be written off the minute someone hears you have a miniature horse as it is...with this rule, their suspicions of insanity and stupidity are confirmed.

So let's continue to come up with solutions, shall we??

Leia

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

You left off C:

Measure at the heighest point of the wither and then pick a date that all horses born before that date are 'grandfathered'. If they measure 'over' at the top of the withers, but still measure 34" or less at the last hair, they would be OK.

Example, and what I have proposed: Change the measuring spot to the highest point of the withers. It is voted on in 2009, it would be effective in 2010. Start measuring all horses at the new method. But, any horse born before 2015 would still have full breeding and showing rights, even if it measures more than 34" at the top of the withers, as long at it does not exceed 34" at the last hair of the mane. This would allow breeders time to change their breeding program to adjust for the fact that horses born after 2015 would be under the more stringent measuring standard.

I think that Option C, is a very viable solution. But, it won't do any good to stop the problems with height protests, unless the Assocation becomes serious about the abuses that occur when horses are measured. We have been allowing horses to be stretched and straddled out. We have allowed handlers to push and pull on the horses heads and backs to get them to drop lower when they are being measured. To get accurate heights, these procedures must be stopped.

I like this option, too! In time, the over 34" will be eliminated and we will have a genuinely true 34" horse.

She seems to be the only one that is consistantly trying to say QUIT LYING AND CHEATING!!!!!!!!!!!
You want to see horses measured in right with no cheating? Then hire ME to go to the shows and measure cause frankly I don't give a rats patutti who is who and I don't brown nose or suck up or take bribes and kiss nobodys rearend and I'll measure those horses in honestly. If you are under you're in and if you are over you're out case closed period shut up and go home if you don't like it and buy a smaller horse. This is complete and utter non-sense that has gone on way too long.

Hear, hear!! We need measurers that will stand up to the bullies and measure correctly. I love the idea that when you come in for measuring, you HAND YOUR HORSE over to an offical "horse holder", and he is measured. The owner/trainer can be there, but s/he CANNOT TOUCH the horse in any way. He can make suggestions (straighten his head, etc) but the holder makes sure the horse is four-square and level. Any intimidation/nastiness and your horse is pulled from the show and a $500 fine is assessed. You have to make it hurt to stop the intimidation. NO TOLERANCE.

Lucy

 

[Laura]

Is anyone out there bothering to listen to ALLISON at all?

She seems to be the only one that is consistantly trying to say QUIT LYING AND CHEATING!!!!!!!!!!!

You want to see horses measured in right with no cheating? Then hire ME to go to the shows and measure cause frankly I don't give a rats patutti who is who and I don't brown nose or suck up or take bribes and kiss nobodys rearend and I'll measure those horses in honestly. If you are under you're in and if you are over you're out case closed period shut up and go home if you don't like it and buy a smaller horse. This is complete and utter non-sense that has gone on way too long.

If people would just be honest about it and measure at the last mane hair without all the stupid idiotic cheating methods, there would be no problem in the first place.

I agree with you and I'd hire you in a hearbeat! Fortunately for us, the steward I usually use is a honest and ACCURATE steward (Yes, Pam I'm talking about you!)

Raising the height limit to 36" in just plain ridiculous. There are still many people here that want to see minis 34 and under and preserve the breed that way. Not everyone wants to jump on the ASPC AMHR taller horse bandwagon.

I do think the way to go is to measure at the withers like every other breed.

The reason I would say to raise the height is because, like many breeders who do have quite a few horses in the 32"-24" range, I don't want future foals of mine to be ineligible, when they are in the same height range as their parents and grandparents, that I also bred and have shown. Why should I have to throw away 17 years of breeding because measurement rule has changed?

I'm not breeding for tall "pony minis". I don't even HAVE any ASPC/AMHR horses and have always proudly proclaimed that my ponies are big ponies. I like it that way! I want my minis 38" and under and my ponies 42"-46". We've had a few small pony foals that will probably stay under 38" and they have been sold to people who can show them however they choose

 

[ckmini]

Raising the height limit to 36" in just plain ridiculous. There are still many people here that want to see minis 34 and under and preserve the breed that way. Not everyone wants to jump on the ASPC AMHR taller horse bandwagon.

What's the difference between 36" at the withers or 34" at the lasts hair of the mane? The horse is still the same height . . . . do people really care if it makes our breed "sound" taller? OH!

Bottom line: hold trainers, stewards, individuals, whoever responsible for the cheating.

 

[dtdminis]

Bottom Line ........ If the Miniature Horse is indeed a horse, then measure it like a horse!!!!!!!!!

EVERY other equine in the world is measured at the top of the withers ... what's so special about the Miniature Horse (AMHA or AMHR) that it needs a different standard of measurement. Pretty darned elitest if you ask me!

 

[Buckskin gal]

lei, Sory you seen what I said as you do. If you would have taken and read the whole of what I said you then wouldn't have just picked out one part to put me down with. Maybe you are the one that is ranting and raving because I simply stated my opinion and did suggest something...oh well some will just never see anything other than the way they want to. Sorry you were so offended. I think there was an attempt by someone to try and fix a problem but it just was not accepted by many.

Raising the height limit to 36" in just plain ridiculous. There are still many people here that want to see minis 34 and under and preserve the breed that way. Not everyone wants to jump on the ASPC AMHR taller horse bandwagon.
I do think the way to go is to measure at the withers like every other breed.

I agree with you Marty but want to clarify that raising the height limit in conjunction with measuring a higher point doesn't mean letting in bigger horses. These are the same horses that are under 34" at the last hair just like they've always been. They just measure a little bigger at a higher point. (Again, like they always have if only anyone had been measuring.)

I personally like that very well thought-out Option C that has been mentioned. I also agree that getting some gosh darn HONESTY in measuring whatever point would get to the root of the problem. I'm still in favor of the withers but wouldn't mind staying with the last mane hair either if measuring practices were enforced properly. But this new method is insane! It makes whether you have the "right spot" or not even MORE subjective, allows in TALLER horses instead of effectively lowering the height limit, and STILL messes up the status quo! How nuts is that??

SO MUCH BASHING AND SO LITTLE COMMENTS OF HOW TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT!

Buckskin Gal, you'll notice this was a productive thread. You're the only one here suddenly ranting and pinning blame instead of offering solutions. Hypocritical, much?

You're right- I'm not an AMHA member (because of this sort of thing) and I really DON'T care. But the sheer fallacy of the argument for this change annoys me and as someone who DOES care about the reputation of the miniature horse within the large horse world YES, I consider myself involved! It's hard enough not to be written off the minute someone hears you have a miniature horse as it is...with this rule, their suspicions of insanity and stupidity are confirmed.

So let's continue to come up with solutions, shall we??

Leia