POLL CROSS ENTERING OF ASPC/AMHR HORSES AT SAME SHOW

[AshleyNicole]

I am confused ? Us being allowed to put our ASPC/AMHR horses in ASPC and AMHR at the same show won't affect how the AMHR class will be pinned or change the judges opinion especially if they show shetland after Mini. And not every shetland is noticable form a Mini I've seen some AMHR only horses win thought they were shetland only to find out their not, a lot of minis have shetland blood in them

This shouldnt be a Mini Shetland debate topic though.

And I do understand the points about horses being overshown but I would hope people wouldn't abuse being able to cross enter.. PErsonally my horse would be in one halter class AMHR and one ASPC if they did performance I would still only do AMHR.

Not really trying to turn it into a mini/Shetland thing lol. I usually like to talk to a lot of people before I have a opinion about something and after talking to some judges etc. this is what they told me. AMHR knows people want a double registered horse and they know that if that horse is ASPC/AMHR it keeps the money in AMHR. It is good business really. Those same judges told us that yes they are looking for a ASPC Shetland like horse in halter, driving etc...this is just what we were told not making this up now. Now I realize that many miniatures come from a Shetland. Shetlands then do not look like Shetlands today. At least not the ones that were used in miniatures IMO. (Not talking about crossing a ASPC/AMHR horse with a AMHR horse) As I said before I have seen a straight miniature beat a Shetland but mostly it is Shetlands who win against the miniatures if not then why are so many registering a ASPC horse as AMHR and then showing that horse in AMHR? I do think it will pass and it will benefit AMHR/ASPC. The question is will it benefit the straight miniature B sized horse? If not what happens to them? I know that they will likely show against the same horses anyway but perhaps a ASPC/AMHR horse might be trying to HOF in ASPC at that show. I took my straight B mini to a show last year where she would have gone up against more ASPC horses if this rule was in affect then. (she did get a 2nd) I am in no way wanting to stir something up but from what I've been told I just worry about the straight B sized horse, as well as the tall A sized horse. Flame if you want but as I said I am only repeating what I was told by judges/trainers who have been in it for a long time and from what they say it is the ASPC style horse they are looking for.

 

[ckmini]

I think this is a great way to increase revenue at shows for our local clubs as well as promoting the ASPC (which it would be great to see more than 3 ponies in a class at the local shows!)

As far as the comments regarding the the straight B minis, I don't get the opposition. A good mini will ALWAYS beat a bad shetland. That being said, I like what the small shetland has brought to the mini world: longer, more upright necks and higher and more athletic trot. Yes, this is re-defining the miniature horse of 20 years ago, but the 'straight B minis' (and A's for that matter) have also started this trend years ago by breeding for the arab look.

And I agree with what someone else previously posted, those who have ASPC/AMHR are already showing AMHR because that is where the competition is, this is primary going to impact the number of under classic shetlands showing.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Honestly this proposal doesn't have anything to do with AMHR. It won't affect the minis in any way. Obviously this is just another way to get people more involved showing in ASPC due to lack of enteries. I will say it again make Congress a qualifying show, then I will be more for this. Also perhaps it would get more people showing at our shows if they made it a qualifying show.

Also I don't see how this could be a legal thing because its not like once you get mini papers you can never show that horse as a shetland. They have a choice at that time in which registry to show that horse in. After thinking about it honestly I really don't care. As long as it doesn't affect the miniatures and my horses classes I don't care. This vote is obviously 50/50 perhaps more leaning towards no. I will still vote no until they make Congress a qualifying show.

 

[LaVern]

JMS I have to disagree, I think it would affect AMHR. Unless there are two sets of judges, the doubles would get looked at twice. We already complain that we don't get looked at once. Do you think that a Judge that has just place a Champion Shetland Stallion is not going to give him a very good placing when he comes in against the minis?

It says a bunch of stuff in our rule book about the judges not seeing the horses ahead of time.

Maybe it would work to have one day Shetland show with a set of judges and then the next a regular show with other judges, or something like that.

But then already we have so many AMHR/AMHA shows put together, that the weekend wouldn't be long enough.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I see what you are saying Lavern and I can't disagree with you.

 

[ahrobertspony]

Am not a legal expert, however, I would guess that we need to look at TWO potential related areas that could cause legal problems:

1) If we allow crossing of OTHER double registered animals at the same show (ie, Modern to ASPR ... Classic to ASPR), then are there any legal ramifications when we then prohibit another exact similar situation ... AMHR to ASPC at the same show?

2) If something is issued registration and those registrations are considered valid & legal and the animal meets height, age or other parameters for an area of competition, is it legally problematic if the assocition then says "yep, you have those papers but ... so sorry ... we aren't going to allow you to do the things those papers should by all rights entitle you to do and for which the horse meets all the other criteria" ???

And ... some cross points to the idea "but my horse will be hurt (or helped) in the second division. Well, again, you do not HAVE to show both ways. The rule doesn't make it mandatory. It would make it opitonal. Second, I believe it will cause more current AMHR competitors to show the second way into ASPC than primariliy ASPC competitors to show the second way into AMHR. That's the reality of the majority of the folks who are supporting this. So ... if those folks want to take the chance the second time, then it's their choice and the consequences are theirs to face. If you are that concerned about Shetlands hurting the AMHR classes, you can always petition your local show committee to get them to put the mini classes FIRST before the Shetland classes. Then, those Minis that were already touted as being better than the ponies will have a double advantage ... not only are they better to begin with, they have a win. Surely that means they'd do better if they come back in the pony class... following the arguments made earlier in this thread. Works better for me anyway because it takes me way more time for my braids, stud-tack, etc.

Did we NOT recently remove the prohibition requiring AMHR secondary championship & grand qualifiers to be stood & placed in a similar order to their previous class are qualifier? Aren't classes supposed to be all new EVERY single time?

Hope judges aren't reading this. Some might be insulted by the insinuation that they aren't smart enough or able enough or non-political enough to do what they ought to .... and see the class as new every single time. Additionally, are all the entries always the same in every class at every show? Often they are not. But, judging assignments often go in streaks. You can guarantee that anyone tapped to do Nationals is going to be making many appearances at other shows earlier in the season. So, following the same basic point of argument, a judge who tied a horse at a show in April is going to automatically turn around and tie that horse exactly the same way at a show four weeks later in another state .... even if their is a way better horse in the ring at the second show.

I'm going to have to reconsider some of my thinking. Apparently, I should automatically count myself out every time I get beat. I should just know I am not going to go ahead and do well when I come back for a championship. And, if I get my butt whooped in the driving qualifier, I definitely shouldn't stake something. Who knew? Glad I wasn't aware of that before OR I would have missed out on some championships I'm pretty proud of.

And ... for the record ... I was in favor of the limitation before and have voted for it. I'm not personally in favor of changing it now. However, I'm reasoned enough to understand why the association might have to consider it. I also understand the points that my friends who are adamantly in favor of this make.

 

[LaVern]

I guess those legal things have to be addressed. The law doesn't care if things are practical.

How can we kick out AMHR horses if they measure over 38. I don't think we can.

How can we not have all the classes for the smaller ponies at Congress if we have them for the taller ones.

Must we have classes at Nationals for the Sport Pony, and classes at our shows so we can qualify.

I was thinking also that if this goes, many of the ASPC Awards, other than Congress will go to the miniature ASPC horses, because some of the taller ones only go to a few shows, and the double will be shown lots. And how could we not have many classes for them at Congress if they are the best and take all the awards.

 

[kaykay]

If it had not been for Belinda we would not know anything about this. Thanks again Belinda.

Lavern the meeting agendas (spring and convention) are supposed to be on the website no later than 10 days before the meeting. For some reason this is not happening. Most of the items on the spring agenda are submitted by directors for the agenda (but not all) I think they should also be in the Journal. But no one asked me

This is why I put the entire agenda on another post. But again if members act disinterested or do not ask for information to be made available they will not have it. I have been posting agendas for the last couple years but probably will not continue doing that (which will make some people very happy LOL)

How can we kick out AMHR horses if they measure over 38. I don't think we can.

It can be done because once again AMHR is a height only registry. Once it becomes a breed that cannot happen. But going from the last post on this when I proposed someone submit a proposal to make them a breed, very few agreed.

How can we not have all the classes for the smaller ponies at Congress if we have them for the taller ones.

A few classed for the shorter ones were added but added so late and without promotion that I really don't think most even knew they were added.

And how could we not have many classes for them at Congress if they are the best and take all the awards.

Number one you (and some others) are the ones saying they take all the awards LOL. I never said that for sure. We are constantly told that since Congress loses money we can't add classes etc etc.

To whoever (I cant scroll back far enough to see the posters name) had a judge tell them that they "look" for ASPC/AMHR horses to judge and pin, that is ridiculous and never in all my years I have heard a judge say that. Not to be snarky but many times what someone actually says and what someone hears are two totally different things. I just cannot believe a judge would say that.

Bottom line this rule will make ZERO difference in what horses show AMHR!!! Zero!! It will only change what is showing in ASPC classes.

 

[LaVern]

I think you misunderstood me on one point KayKay. I was talking about the number of shows that the miniature Shetlands would show at. The miniature people are known for going to a lot of shows. That is were you rack up points. Trailer points I guess, so that is why I said they would take a lot of the Shetland awards.

Again I go back to the same thing, every time you make it more advantageous to have a double you make it harder for the B horse and the tall Shetland, to survive.

And a few classes for the smaller ponies at Congress, I think a judge would say same for all.

 

[Filipowicz Farm]

I would love to see this pass. With the price of gas and many people limiting how many shows they go to. Many of the shows here in Michigan are for minis only and if I have a aspc/amhr horse would like it to get points as a mini and Shetland.

 

[Minimor]

How can we kick out AMHR horses if they measure over 38. I don't think we can. Probably we cannot—some people have been saying that for awhile now..it’s just that no one has actually put it to the test yet by filing a lawsuit. It is easier to just hide the oversize horse behind the barn and use him/her for breeding then it is to take it to court.

How can we not have all the classes for the smaller ponies at Congress if we have them for the taller ones. There are classes for the smaller ones at Congress. 42” and under and over 42” (I believe for Moderns the cutoff is 43”?) The only people who really think that a smaller (39” or 38”?) division is necessary are the AMHR people who are hung up on believing that the smaller ponies are not competitive against the bigger ones. In the pony classes this simply isn’t true—size doesn’t matter in ASPC the way it does in AMHR so a good 38” pony has as much chance of winning as a 41 or 42” pony.

I truly don’t get the AMHR-only people. They squawk because there aren’t enough ponies being shown and they feel they (AMHR) are carrying the ponies. But then they keep going on about having a smaller division….if there aren’t enough ponies being shown now to fill the over/under classes why would you want to add more classes? That will just cost more money and will mean that classes are overall smaller than ever.

Must we have classes at Nationals for the Sport Pony, and classes at our shows so we can qualify. Sport pony? Do you mean National Show Pony? NSPR?

I was thinking also that if this goes, most of the ASPC Awards, other than Congress will go to the miniature ASPC horses, were as some of the taller ones only go to a few shows, the double will be shown lots. I would think that if anyone is hauling taller ponies to show, they will go to all the shows the owner hauls to, with the exception of the AMHR-only shows where there are no pony classes at all. Those AMHR shows won’t add anything to the ASPC year end awards, so make no difference. In any case, it's no different from always--the ponies that show the most end up with the most all star points...so the person that shows at only 2 shows is always at a disadvantage over those who haul to 6 shows.



I also fail to see how this rule would take away from the taller ponies, as you have suggested. There are people who specifically like the taller ponies, and I’m quite sure that they aren’t going to dump those ponies now just because the smaller ponies can show AMHR. Even if they have smaller ponies they may not want to show them AMHR—I know I have little interest in showing AMHR; I have 3 or 4 ponies that might possibly measure in to AMHR but I don’t know if I will bother putting them in. It’s just extra money, and I would probably never show them R anyway…for several reasons. One of the big things for me is the way Minis are shown, at a tiddly little shuffle, not even a real trot. I like to go out in the ring & show off what my horse can do, so I love the rail work the ponies do. THAT is the way I prefer to show. And I do love my taller ponies.

 

[jeniemac]

IF THIS IS ALLOWED THEN ..AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR 3 YEARS.. WE NEED TO START TYPING THE CLASSES

AMHR -ARAB TYPE-(FINE)

AGE..HEIGHT...GENDER

QUATER TYPE

AGE--HEIGHT--GENDER

DRAFT TYPE

AGE --HEIGHT--GENDER

THIS MEANS ADDING MORE CLASSES AND MORE DAYS TO THE LOCAL SHOWS NOT TO MENTION THE EXTENCION OF THE MINIATURE HORSE ITS SELF WHICH IS WHATS HAPPENING WITH THE MINI/PONY CROSS.

IT IS HARD ENOUGH TO COMPETE WITH THE PONY CROSSES AS IT IS.THIS WOULD JUST MAKE IT HARDER ON US THAT WANT TO PRESERVE THE MINIATURE AS A BREED.

AMHA HAS THE RIGHT IDEA BUT ARE GOING ABOUT IT THE WRONG WAY..

AMHR IS A HEIGHT REGESTRY YES BUT THOSE OF US THAT WANT TO SHOW AMHR IN OUR RESPECTIVE CLASSES ARE ALWAYS GETTING PASSED OVER FOR THE PONY CROSSES BECAUSE OF THEIR TYPE NOT THEIR HEIGHT.

AMHR IS THAT AMHR

ASPC IS THAT ASPC

BY ALLOWING AMHR TO REGESTAR AS AMHR/ASPC THEY HAVE ALREADY OPENED THE DOOR FOR THIS TO HAPPEN.. IT WAS WRONG THEN AND IT IS WRONG NOW ON THE PART OF THE AMHR HORSE.

JUST MY OPINION

 

[ruffian]

Karen - the AMHR/AMHA shows typically have a full day of each. So for example Saturday would be the AMHA show, and Sunday could be the AMHR. I stewarded a show last year and am doing it again where the manager is doing AMHR on Saturday and ASPC on Sunday.

 

[chandab]

How can we kick out AMHR horses if they measure over 38. I don't think we can. Probably we cannot—some people have been saying that for awhile now..it’s just that no one has actually put it to the test yet by filing a lawsuit. It is easier to just hide the oversize horse behind the barn and use him/her for breeding then it is to take it to court.

It took awhile, but this is why excessive white horses are now allowed into AQHA, someone finally took it to court. If both parents are registered, then the foal should be elligible for registration.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

It took awhile, but this is why excessive white horses are now allowed into AQHA, someone finally took it to court. If both parents are registered, then the foal should be elligible for registration.

Until AMHR becomes a recgonized breed and not a height registry I don't think anyone would win, but until one day in the future when the AMHR miniature horse becomes a recgonized breed I think they will need to have breeding papers available to those who go over becomes of legal matters. I think we will see something like this happen in AMHA if they don't recgonize it once they close and not all oversize stock keep their papers.

 

[sdmini]

..

 

[TomEHawk]

The issue I have with this proposal are a few rules between the ASPC & AMHR. The biggest one is the razor rule that doesn't allow for the ASPC ponies to be razored but does allow for the AMHR horses to be. Rather you agree the rule or not, it's still a factor. There are plenty of other reasons I don't agree with the proposal, but this is a big reason for me.

 

[disneyhorse]

An exhibitor showing in both would just need to be careful of the rules.

Regarding razoring, just don't do it if you're showing as a pony as well as a mini. It's not necessary anyway. A 40 blade is just fine.

Maybe down the road, it will evolve to no razoring for any horse.

Andrea

 

[Belinda]

Wow I want to thank each and every one of you for such a great debate , and heck you kept it nice !!!

I am on my way to the board meeting and have printed off most of this , although a lot went on after I did that. I guess between all the private emails and the comments on my face book page where I posted it, It seems to be very close on how folks feel, So this is a tough one ..

Also Kay , yes the agenda is suppose to be published , and when I got back and saw everyone ON YOUR forum asking for it I posted it , and thanks for copying it and putting it here.. I thank that is what Renee was referring to !!

Well if anyone has anything else that you want to say or for me to bring up on this subject just email or post as I will continue to keep a check on this topic.

And many thanks again for everyones input .

 

[kaykay]

Also Kay , yes the agenda is suppose to be published , and when I got back and saw everyone ON YOUR forum asking for it I posted it , and thanks for copying it and putting it here.. I thank that is what Renee was referring to !!

Belinda my post was not in any way a dig at you. Nor was it to pat myself on the back. I do appreciate you posting it. And I appreciate the other Director that posted the 2nd half of it.

My only point was that the entire agenda should be available to every member that wants to see it before the meetings. I believe that was passed by the BOD at a BOD meeting yet no one is doing it.

Its just very frustrating to see things passed and then get ignored.