I am at the AMHA meeting and on the committees that were part of the preparation of these proposed rules.
The rule for closing the registry was proposed so that we could take the FIRST step in becoming a true breed. In its original form, the person had initially considered a date of 2009, as that was the normal time for a new rule that is voted on at this meeting to take effect. During the process, it was pointed out that implementing the rule might be more acceptable to the membership if it had a little more lead time. The thought process was that some people may have bought or bred horses that they were hoping to hardship when they turned five (assuming the horse stayed under 34" at maturity), and that if the registry closed right away, that they would lose that investment as the registry would close before the horse matured. So, the date of 2013 was chosen. There was never any mention in the committee meetings of the desire to keep AMHR horses out of AMHA, only to close the registry to start becoming a breed.
On the issue of WHERE to measure, I personally proposed that we change the measuring point to the 'highest point of the withers'. This was so that we could conform to the way that equines are traditionally measured. It would not only give us more credibility with the 'horse world', but would also help to alleviate the differences in height that occur for the overseas buyers of our miniature horses.
My proposal to change the location of where we measure was not done in any way to address the 'problems' that have been encountered with measuring at shows. In my personal opinion, that problem is because horses are not standing correctly when they are measured. It may rarely be because someone couldn't find the last hair, but seriously, from what I have seen, it is 99+% due to the horse being set up incorrectly.
My proposal (highest point of the withers) did not pass, by a large margin, even though it was tied to a proposal that would have allowed any horse that is currently 34" or less at the last hair of the mane, but over 34" at the withers, to be 'grandfathered'. (My version of 'grandfathered' was that the horse would continue with full breeding and showing rights for its lifetime, as long at it continued to measure 34" or under at the last hair of the mane. The grandfathering would only have affected the way that the maximum heigth is determined, it would have not bearing on how all horses are measured for the different class sizes, such as 28-30" and 30-32", etc. Although this would have 'favored' the grandfathered horses in the tallest height division, as they would be taller than the horses that are measured by the new standard, but in time, those horses would disappear from the showring, just as the Foundation Oversize horses are fading away.)
The ‘base of the withers’ proposal immediately followed my ‘highest point of the withers’ proposal. There was relatively little discussion. I did stand up to oppose the measure. My personal feeling is that since the ‘problem’ is not WHERE we measure, that changing the location from one non-standard location (last hair of the mane) to another (base of the withers) is not any kind of an answer. I feel that making the change to the base of the withers is pointless.
I have been around horses for 40+ years, and until last year, I had never heard of the ‘base of the withers’ or ‘lowest point of the withers’ as a place to measure horses. Now, I am hearing that it is a definable ‘notch’ on the bone. I have a general idea where it is supposed to be located, but until someone actually shows (helps me feel) where this mysterious place is located, I will have to wait to tell you whether I think it will be an ‘easier’ or ‘better’ place for people to find than the ‘last hair of the mane’.
Even if it does turn out to be ‘easy’, I just don’t understand how anyone thinks it will be easier to explain the ‘base of the withers’ to someone than it is to tell them how to find the ‘last hair of the mane’. Just about everyone, including very seasoned horse people will have to be taught to find this ‘notch’.
And, just in case anyone is interested, there was a letter sent in by one member that measured 9 horses, at the ‘last hair’, the ‘top of withers’ and at the ‘base of the withers’. The max difference from the ‘last hair’ to the top of the withers was 1.5” taller, the minimum difference was .25” taller, with the average being .833” taller. The max difference from the ‘last hair’ to the ‘base’ was 1.0 inches shorter, the minimum was 0” and the average was .36” shorter. So, the change in the measuring location means that there is very little chance that ANY horse will need to be grandfathered, as all horses will likely measure shorter than they do currently.
Whether it was fully realized or not, this means that as of the effective date of this new rule (Jan 1, 2009) AMHA will be bringing taller horses into its fold, as some horses that measured 35” tall will now measure only 34”. What this means for horses whose papers had previously been turned in, or those whose owners never sought their AMHA papers, still has not been resolved or even discussed as the change is so new.
I am sad that this new measuring point was adopted. I personally can not see an ‘up’ side. It doesn’t address the ‘measuring issue’ at shows, it only makes the discrepancy between the size we measure in the US vs Overseas worse, we continue with a non-standard spot, it will be an unending learning curve training people to find the ‘notch’, and it will be even more difficult to accurately observe whether a horse is being measured in the correct place as the ‘base’ is a place you are supposed to be able to ‘feel’ but from what I am understanding, can not ‘see’.
The rule for closing the registry was proposed so that we could take the FIRST step in becoming a true breed. In its original form, the person had initially considered a date of 2009, as that was the normal time for a new rule that is voted on at this meeting to take effect. During the process, it was pointed out that implementing the rule might be more acceptable to the membership if it had a little more lead time. The thought process was that some people may have bought or bred horses that they were hoping to hardship when they turned five (assuming the horse stayed under 34" at maturity), and that if the registry closed right away, that they would lose that investment as the registry would close before the horse matured. So, the date of 2013 was chosen. There was never any mention in the committee meetings of the desire to keep AMHR horses out of AMHA, only to close the registry to start becoming a breed.
On the issue of WHERE to measure, I personally proposed that we change the measuring point to the 'highest point of the withers'. This was so that we could conform to the way that equines are traditionally measured. It would not only give us more credibility with the 'horse world', but would also help to alleviate the differences in height that occur for the overseas buyers of our miniature horses.
My proposal to change the location of where we measure was not done in any way to address the 'problems' that have been encountered with measuring at shows. In my personal opinion, that problem is because horses are not standing correctly when they are measured. It may rarely be because someone couldn't find the last hair, but seriously, from what I have seen, it is 99+% due to the horse being set up incorrectly.
My proposal (highest point of the withers) did not pass, by a large margin, even though it was tied to a proposal that would have allowed any horse that is currently 34" or less at the last hair of the mane, but over 34" at the withers, to be 'grandfathered'. (My version of 'grandfathered' was that the horse would continue with full breeding and showing rights for its lifetime, as long at it continued to measure 34" or under at the last hair of the mane. The grandfathering would only have affected the way that the maximum heigth is determined, it would have not bearing on how all horses are measured for the different class sizes, such as 28-30" and 30-32", etc. Although this would have 'favored' the grandfathered horses in the tallest height division, as they would be taller than the horses that are measured by the new standard, but in time, those horses would disappear from the showring, just as the Foundation Oversize horses are fading away.)
The ‘base of the withers’ proposal immediately followed my ‘highest point of the withers’ proposal. There was relatively little discussion. I did stand up to oppose the measure. My personal feeling is that since the ‘problem’ is not WHERE we measure, that changing the location from one non-standard location (last hair of the mane) to another (base of the withers) is not any kind of an answer. I feel that making the change to the base of the withers is pointless.
I have been around horses for 40+ years, and until last year, I had never heard of the ‘base of the withers’ or ‘lowest point of the withers’ as a place to measure horses. Now, I am hearing that it is a definable ‘notch’ on the bone. I have a general idea where it is supposed to be located, but until someone actually shows (helps me feel) where this mysterious place is located, I will have to wait to tell you whether I think it will be an ‘easier’ or ‘better’ place for people to find than the ‘last hair of the mane’.
Even if it does turn out to be ‘easy’, I just don’t understand how anyone thinks it will be easier to explain the ‘base of the withers’ to someone than it is to tell them how to find the ‘last hair of the mane’. Just about everyone, including very seasoned horse people will have to be taught to find this ‘notch’.
And, just in case anyone is interested, there was a letter sent in by one member that measured 9 horses, at the ‘last hair’, the ‘top of withers’ and at the ‘base of the withers’. The max difference from the ‘last hair’ to the top of the withers was 1.5” taller, the minimum difference was .25” taller, with the average being .833” taller. The max difference from the ‘last hair’ to the ‘base’ was 1.0 inches shorter, the minimum was 0” and the average was .36” shorter. So, the change in the measuring location means that there is very little chance that ANY horse will need to be grandfathered, as all horses will likely measure shorter than they do currently.
Whether it was fully realized or not, this means that as of the effective date of this new rule (Jan 1, 2009) AMHA will be bringing taller horses into its fold, as some horses that measured 35” tall will now measure only 34”. What this means for horses whose papers had previously been turned in, or those whose owners never sought their AMHA papers, still has not been resolved or even discussed as the change is so new.
I am sad that this new measuring point was adopted. I personally can not see an ‘up’ side. It doesn’t address the ‘measuring issue’ at shows, it only makes the discrepancy between the size we measure in the US vs Overseas worse, we continue with a non-standard spot, it will be an unending learning curve training people to find the ‘notch’, and it will be even more difficult to accurately observe whether a horse is being measured in the correct place as the ‘base’ is a place you are supposed to be able to ‘feel’ but from what I am understanding, can not ‘see’.
OH! Whenever I have to explain how minis are measured to my friends with full size horses they don't get it.......and guess what....they still won't get it.
