New proposed class division in AMHA

[horses mouth]

Gary, I don't know why you are saying I didn't contribute... I was at the June meeting in 2007, I contributed with emails, and I participated in a telephone conference last year. I was at the AMHA Annual meeting in February 2008. I have also responded to the email that was sent from perfcomm@alltel on 13 May. I have contributed to this thread.

As for it being an 'open' vs. a 'closed' wheel cart, according to the email that was sent to me by the Performance Committee on 13 May, and according to the thread that Lost Spoke put here on the Forum for you on the 13th, the rule states an 'open' wheel cart.

Here is the quote, "A. Carriage Driving is a single horse driving class, hitched to an “open” wheel cart with either wooden or metal spoke wheels."

Again, I don't believe that there should be any restriction on the type of cart, 'open', 'closed', or even metal training carts. The 'look' of the competitor is to be evaluated by the judge, not by the people writing rules. All we need to consider for the rule is safety. We shouldn't be writing any rules that do nothing more that price some people out of being able to show their horse. Just because someone doesn't think a metal easy-entry type of cart is appropriate for a National Show, doesn't me it should be against the rules to do so. By prohibiting that kind of cart in the show rules, it affect the local shows as well as the National Show. We don't need to put roadblocks up for people starting out in the horse show world. They should be encouraged to show, using whatever equipment they have available, as long as it is safe.

Julie

I spent most of the morning cleaning stalls and thinking about our small exchange of differing opionions here.

Let me first start by APOLOGIZING for putting you on the spot about contributing. I truly do not think this is the correct venue for that and obviously we have differnt interpretations of contributing. Yes you have contributed here on this topic. My point was that in the numerous discussions and emails regarding this proposed division I do not recall you ever saying or replying, "Personally, I don't think we should 'need' a new division." Maybe I am just taking this statement out of context, but PLEASE remember that we are trying to HELP AMHA and it's members. Like it or not my way of trying to accomplish these type of changes is to leave a few details to compromise so the whole proposal doesn't get "shot down in flames" by the agendas at play. It has worked for me before and I have applied it to other peoples proposals, effectively, to also help them when it affected the greater good.

Gary Barnes

 

[R3]

Gary, I made my comments 'in person' last June and I made them again on a phone conference last year. I expressed my opinion about the lack of need for a 'new' division, but I did concede that if we could not 'fix' the Country Dvision now, then it would be OK to have a new division. But, that is shouldn't be for horses who didn't have enough action for Country Pleasure (so that it became just another 'trickle down' class), but for those with 'good' movement of a different kind, the long, low, balanced, forward reaching and moving kind of style. At all of those times, I also said I would not support a "Western" driving class, as the 'style' it evokes was not what we needed. I was the one who suggested something something incorporating 'Hunter' was a better way to go.

I am sorry that our defintions of 'contribute' are different, as I thought I had. To my knowledge, I only missed one conference call and replied (to everyone on the address list) to most, if not all the emails, last year. I did miss the one teleconference this year (I just plain forgot...), but I did reply (to all) when the performance committee sent out the email on 13 May. I received replies from two others on the mailing list, but not from the yourself or the Committee.

In my memory, the majority of the time spent by the Committee 'events' that I have been part of have been in regards to other issues, and on most of those I have had little to say. I am not really 'into' Futurities or Stakes classes, so I had little input on those items. So, that may be why you don't feel I have contributed, or possibly, my comments just were so tangled up with others' comments that you didn't directly associatie them with me personally.

I would like a place for the 'Hunter' style moving horses to be competive and admired for their own 'good movement'. But, I would also like more performance classes where people who don't have a trainer can compete, have fun, and be competative. Those type of class issues I would be able to give lots of input on.

I hope you don't feel my lack of enthusiam for the proposed Carriage Driving Divisions is a betrayal of the Committee, but if we are indeed going to have the opportunity to add more classes or divisions, I want it to be some that I PERSONALLY can support, and the Carriage Driving one, as titled and written, is not one that I PERSONNALY will vote for.

Julie

 

[MinimotionW-S]

Howdy Mini fans!

I've just been to a local club meeting here in the South Eastern part of the USA. So far I have yet to speak with anyone "personally" that is not in support of the new driving division that will be proposed in AMHA. Our local club that is comprised of a 6 state area has many relatively "new" members of the Miniature horse world. Everybody, I repeat,in is in favor of this new division.... A has been mentioned on this forum before these horses are already out there. A similar class in AMHR is working already. One young lady told me when I asked her what she thought of the Western Country Pleasure class, said" The only thing I don't like is that all the shows don't offer ALL the classes possible". If we're going to have it, and I believe we will eventually we need to go ahead and give it especially to Youth 12 & Under; Youth 13 to 18; AOTE; Amateur level 1; amateur level 2. There are horses just waiting to show in this division. A prominent driving trainer here in the East suggested the name "Classic Pleasure Driving"9. Several like the name "Hunter Pleasure" as well. WHATEVER the name becomes....We NEED this class!!! Please support us. It might not be the "Boom" in all areas of te country but here it will be an immediate success.

Of course it doesn"t have to be added to class lists; just where it's really wanted.

Darlene Bridges (NC)

 

[horses mouth]

Gary, I made my comments 'in person' last June and I made them again on a phone conference last year. I expressed my opinion about the lack of need for a 'new' division, but I did concede that if we could not 'fix' the Country Dvision now, then it would be OK to have a new division. But, that is shouldn't be for horses who didn't have enough action for Country Pleasure (so that it became just another 'trickle down' class), but for those with 'good' movement of a different kind, the long, low, balanced, forward reaching and moving kind of style. At all of those times, I also said I would not support a "Western" driving class, as the 'style' it evokes was not what we needed. I was the one who suggested something something incorporating 'Hunter' was a better way to go.

I am sorry that our defintions of 'contribute' are different, as I thought I had. To my knowledge, I only missed one conference call and replied (to everyone on the address list) to most, if not all the emails, last year. I did miss the one teleconference this year (I just plain forgot...), but I did reply (to all) when the performance committee sent out the email on 13 May. I received replies from two others on the mailing list, but not from the yourself or the Committee.

In my memory, the majority of the time spent by the Committee 'events' that I have been part of have been in regards to other issues, and on most of those I have had little to say. I am not really 'into' Futurities or Stakes classes, so I had little input on those items. So, that may be why you don't feel I have contributed, or possibly, my comments just were so tangled up with others' comments that you didn't directly associatie them with me personally.

I would like a place for the 'Hunter' style moving horses to be competive and admired for their own 'good movement'. But, I would also like more performance classes where people who don't have a trainer can compete, have fun, and be competative. Those type of class issues I would be able to give lots of input on.

I hope you don't feel my lack of enthusiam for the proposed Carriage Driving Divisions is a betrayal of the Committee, but if we are indeed going to have the opportunity to add more classes or divisions, I want it to be some that I PERSONALLY can support, and the Carriage Driving one, as titled and written, is not one that I PERSONNALY will vote for.

Julie

Julie

Thanks for the reply!

Let me clarify a few things as I answer so many people's reqests that I tend to forget to whom I have replied and what questions I have answered.

This is designed to be an entry level class by the mere fact that the horse is asked to drive forward and not up. This makes it SO much easier for the lay person to keep the horse in frame.

This is the "Hunter Pleasure" class. All we did was to rename it, mainly in an attempt to keep it alive. Show Rules chose to ignore our flow chart and vote it down in a March teleconference call.

The name, type of vehicle, etc. are all negotiable items and should not influence the main objective. If you read the flow chart on page 56 and 57 of the AMHA rule book you'll see that these type of things will get worked out way before it reaches a membership vote.

Please be forward thinking enough to understand that these proposals are meant to be "foundation" items that will then influence other greater goods. For instance the Stakes program was/is meant to stimulate nominations into the driving futurity and both of them lay the groundwork for "aged" driving classes (notice that we have 3 and 4 year old Country and Single at the Regionals). Providing the incentive for people to buy and then show 3 year olds stimulates the economy of AMHA from the breeder to the local show and so on. Under the old system the incentive was to buy the ex world champion (why do you think there is so much dissention with AOTE) or to show their 5 time world champion horse. The effect of this is reduced entries and the like because "we can't compete".

I understand this is a conversation that we should have had while you were on the committee. I am open to anyone's input. In fact here is my cell number for anyone who doesn't understand or just wants to comment:

(8170 219-2966

Please respect this offer and call at appropriate times. I am in the CST zone.

Repectfully

Gary Barnes

 

[R3]

Please don't misunderstand, I am not against the 'idea' that is being proposed here. I am objecting to the specifics of the proposal AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. I also understand that it is not in its 'FINAL' form. My comments are intended to help shape the 'final' version.

My 'concerns' are:

1. It isn't 'carriage' driving, as in tack and presentation are different from ADS style, so the name is inappropriate.

2. If the 'style' is supposed to be like a 'hunter', which is a 'known' style, then it would probably be a good idea to use the term 'hunter' in the class description. I would suggest "Hunter In Harness", "Hunter Under Harness", "Hunter Pleasure", or something along that line.

3. Neither the name of the class nor the gait descriptions really quantify the 'style' of movement that is wanted. It doesn't talk about the amount of knee action or the reach of the stride in the gait description, just in the introduction part. It needs to be VERY clear in the gait description.

4. Why must it be an 'open' wheel cart? Why can't an exhibitor use their closed wheel cart? If they are doing roadster classes as well, especially if they are also wanting to show roadster at AMHR shows where a closed wheel cart is mandatory, then they would need to have two carts. That would cost extra and require more storage room for carrying two carts, both of which many competitors don't have.

It is my personal opinion, and one I am willing to go to 'bat' for, is that it does not matter what the Show Rules Committee decided in a teleconference in March, they can not kill a show-rule proposal at that time. They may decide at that time they want to kill it in June, but it isn't (shouldn't be, anyway) actually be killed at that time. It SHOULD be put on the agenda for the Show Rule Committee in June.

Again, my objections are to the new rule, AS WRITTEN. I still believe it needs a lot of work before it is brought up for a vote of the membership. It is not a good thing, even if done with truly great intentions, to ‘push’ the wrong thing through, just to have ‘something’. ‘Something’ is not always better than ‘nothing’.

If it came right down to it, I think it would be better to have to wait a year to get it ‘right’ the first time rather than try to ‘fix’ it after it has been passes. We might even be stuck with having to wait for two years to make any changes, as most rules can not be changed until after they have been in place for two years. Since this would be a new rule, the entire thing is new, so we may not be able to change any part of it for that timeframe.

 

[Tango]

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement:

"If it came right down to it, I think it would be better to have to wait a year to get it ‘right’ the first time rather than try to ‘fix’ it after it has been passes."

That statement should apply to EVERY proposal that comes down the pike.

As far as naming the driving class "Hunter", what comes to my mind is a horse jumping in harness.

Nikki

 

[maryann]

I agree with Darlene, aka Minimotion above. The class is definately needed and wanted here in the East.

As far as the names go , I don't like any of them mentioned before other than Western Country Pleasure which is what I am used to seeing on the AMHR class list. But no matter what you name it, there will many who don't like it. So what ever you name it , it will be well recieved. Those of us , including myself who may not like the name will eventually get over it and enjoy the class. I hope you guys, the powers that be, will work out the kinks , and make this a new and pleasant class for us exhibitors to enjoy.

And thanks again to the performance committee for asking the masses( us ) our opinion on this class. It shows that you care about the general members, and I appreciate it.

Mary Frazier

 

[horses mouth]

I want to thank all of you for your interest and please understand that all of your concerns will be addressed once we get over the "hump" of why the show rules committee has "voted down" this proposal, contrary to our rules and flow chart. As a past repeat member of Show Rules I am appalled.

I'll repeat that again in different words.

The Head of Show Rules had the Show Rules committee vote on this rule proposal (resulting in it's termination) in March instead of following the AMHA Bylaw (Article XVI - Amendment Of Rules) on page 26 and 27. This is also contrary to the AMHA Flow Chart on page 57 and 58.

The reason that Tommy, Darlene and I brought this to this forum was to try to gain momentum and support from AMHA members who so desperately want to be involved in decisions made by and for this association.

If you study the Flow Chart you will see that the membership only gets to vote on proposals after the "kinks" are worked out, at the February meeting. I assure you that the finalized version will have been addressed in all of the prescribed ways. Including the NAME.

 

[horses mouth]

btt

 

[horses mouth]

BTT

 

[Field-of-Dreams]

Keep fighting, Gary. I, for one, really would love to see this go through. I love competing in this class in AMHR and would definitely enter it in AMHA!

Lucy

 

[Margo_C-T]

Gary, you are asking for input; I am a Lifetime AMHA member, and have been involved with the registry since 1984-I have a long and closely-involved lifetime with horses-I've rodeoed NIRA, ridden cutting horses, gathered and worked cattle in all kinds of country, then 'found' the show ring....and as one who began 'showing' horses in the early 70s, mostly 'western', and in many aspects of that venue(from WP to West. Riding to Trail to Reining), and who TURNED HER BACK AND WALKED AWAY,IN TOTAL DISGUST! from the 'western' show ring(QH, Paint, Pinto) when Tommy Manion pretty much singlehandedly got 'peanut rolling established-and has seen it only get WORSE, not better---here are some of my thoughts:

I would be VERY leery of using the word 'Western' in any description of such a class as I see being proposed-it would make me physically ILL to see miniatures be driven as WP stock breed horses 'go' in their show rings,and in fact, I would fight tooth and nail against any such 'way of going' as acceptable! I SURELY would NOT want to see any such 'creep' down to a ridden stock breed WP poor, PITIFUL, sad, way of going!!

Although I do agree that a TRUE Hunter way of going may come closest to how this proposed class is visualized, I would not suggest using that word; the best suggestion I've seen so far is minimor's--Classic Country Driving(I'd leave out the word 'Pleasure' as unneccessary.)

I find the class description as was published in the original thread to be WAY too vague, and agree that more work is needed to refine proposed class requirements.

Agree with Julie's (R3) opinion that it would not be proper to unduly 'restrict' the vehicle requirements. You and I may understand that an EE pipe cart is not the 'most accepted' vehicle for use at the top show venues, but it smacks of inconsiderate elitism to specify as is currently proposed.

I believe it would be QUITE correct and encouraging to entry to add lines about 'proper breeching allowed',at the very LEAST, to the class description! (I was amused at the statement that 'martingales are optional'--excuse me, but martingales have ALWAYS been 'optional'(and I guess we all have to PRESUME that it means 'running' martingales; there ARE other types, you know!!) BTW, as long as 8-9 years ago, I removed the 'boot' from my Jerald, and used my full Smuckers harness(WITH breeching) to show in Country Pleasure, even at AMHA Nationals. When the judges knew their stuff in the judging of driving classes (which MANY miniature judges STILL don't, IMO), AND I gave a 'good go', I did just fine in so doing.

I believe that checks should be made OPTIONAL.

I understand your distress with the 'agendas' and the 'politics'; you certainly aren't the only one who feels they have 'run up against' THAT....for now, that's all I wish to say, but will only add that when ANY organization ignores the wishes of its wider membership, seeming to act instead on the agenda of a select few, I believe they are 'running their train toward the edge of the cliff'.....that points to disaster.

Margo Cox-Townsend

New Mexico

PS--I guess I must be 'out of the loop'--but am curious--what does "BTT" stand for?

 

[horses mouth]

Gary, you are asking for input; I am a Lifetime AMHA member, and have been involved with the registry since 1984-I have a long and closely-involved lifetime with horses-I've rodeoed NIRA, ridden cutting horses, gathered and worked cattle in all kinds of country, then 'found' the show ring....and as one who began 'showing' horses in the early 70s, mostly 'western', and in many aspects of that venue(from WP to West. Riding to Trail to Reining), and who TURNED HER BACK AND WALKED AWAY,IN TOTAL DISGUST! from the 'western' show ring(QH, Paint, Pinto) when Tommy Manion pretty much singlehandedly got 'peanut rolling established-and has seen it only get WORSE, not better---here are some of my thoughts:

I would be VERY leery of using the word 'Western' in any description of such a class as I see being proposed-it would make me physically ILL to see miniatures be driven as WP stock breed horses 'go' in their show rings,and in fact, I would fight tooth and nail against any such 'way of going' as acceptable! I SURELY would NOT want to see any such 'creep' down to a ridden stock breed WP poor, PITIFUL, sad, way of going!!

Although I do agree that a TRUE Hunter way of going may come closest to how this proposed class is visualized, I would not suggest using that word; the best suggestion I've seen so far is minimor's--Classic Country Driving(I'd leave out the word 'Pleasure' as unneccessary.)

I find the class description as was published in the original thread to be WAY too vague, and agree that more work is needed to refine proposed class requirements.

Agree with Julie's (R3) opinion that it would not be proper to unduly 'restrict' the vehicle requirements. You and I may understand that an EE pipe cart is not the 'most accepted' vehicle for use at the top show venues, but it smacks of inconsiderate elitism to specify as is currently proposed.

I believe it would be QUITE correct and encouraging to entry to add lines about 'proper breeching allowed',at the very LEAST, to the class description! (I was amused at the statement that 'martingales are optional'--excuse me, but martingales have ALWAYS been 'optional'(and I guess we all have to PRESUME that it means 'running' martingales; there ARE other types, you know!!) BTW, as long as 8-9 years ago, I removed the 'boot' from my Jerald, and used my full Smuckers harness(WITH breeching) to show in Country Pleasure, even at AMHA Nationals. When the judges knew their stuff in the judging of driving classes (which MANY miniature judges STILL don't, IMO), AND I gave a 'good go', I did just fine in so doing.

I believe that checks should be made OPTIONAL.

I understand your distress with the 'agendas' and the 'politics'; you certainly aren't the only one who feels they have 'run up against' THAT....for now, that's all I wish to say, but will only add that when ANY organization ignores the wishes of its wider membership, seeming to act instead on the agenda of a select few, I believe they are 'running their train toward the edge of the cliff'.....that points to disaster.

Margo Cox-Townsend

New Mexico

PS--I guess I must be 'out of the loop'--but am curious--what does "BTT" stand for?

Margo

Thanks for the incouraging words and the vote of confidence. We (the performance committee) considered many of your thoughts in the preparation of this proposal!

By the way BTT means "Back To Top"

edited because I typed w/o my glasses!

 

[Marty]

Tommy Manion pretty much singlehandedly got 'peanut rolling established-and has seen it only get WORSE, not better

Right on Margo not to mention the "broken back syndrome"

I can't believe I am even attempting to post on this thread as I know nothing about driving but I am learning so please bear with me.

If I did see, as a beginner driver, a western pleasure or hunter pleasure class named as such, I would probably be lousing my horses all up as far as their training. I'd expect to see a hunter type movement for that and a western pleasure driving class with a horse jig jogging along ever so slowly nearly walking.....like my QH peanut roller does (Margo lol) taking 45 minutes to get around the ring.....Then out would come the dreaded western attire that I hate with a passion because I would have to assume its required. I'd be all over the place. Ok that is hypothetical as I wouldn't attempt this without my trainer, but do you get my drift? I think the name of the class should be appropriate as to the movement and set up of the horse as expected.

My actual question would be: How would the horses gaits be affected in this new class? Would it have to be adjusted to suit a new way of going?

 

[Magic]

Although I do agree that a TRUE Hunter way of going may come closest to how this proposed class is visualized, I would not suggest using that word; the best suggestion I've seen so far is minimor's--Classic Country Driving(I'd leave out the word 'Pleasure' as unneccessary.)

Out of all of the name suggestions I've read so far, I like this one the best by far.