Proposal Please Proof

[LaVern]

Well, the letters should start arriving today or tomorrow. All together I sent 17 envelopes with three letters in each of them. I made many mistakes on each of them and had to redo as least three times. Now just to wait and see if I did it right. But, at least now I kind of know how to do it.

 

[R3]

I understand from the letter that accompanied the rule change proposal, that you want the AMHA horse to be:

1. at least three years of age

2. it's height verified (I am assuming that it must be 38" or under?)

3. inspected for obvious faults, such as height or conformation, and only be allowed registration status if it is free of obvious faults.

However, I don't think the proposal as written covers the last item. If you want the horse to be examined for quality, then it needs to be stated in the proposal, and it would need to say exactly what traits/soundness issues would be grounds for denying the registration application.

You mention soundness in the letter, if a horse was unsound due to an injury, would that be grounds to deny it registration when it would not be an inheritable defect?

The other problem is in the way the proposal is written. It says, "...A copy of the AMHA papers along with the Height Verification form (measured and filled out by an ASPC/AMHR/ASPR Steward and examined by an ASPC/AMHR/ASPR Judge) must be submitted along with the application..."

By putting the parenthesis around the section that refers to measuring and filling out the form, and since it appears immediately after referring to the Height Verification form, the rule can be interpreted that the Height Verification form is what is then examined by the Judge, not the horse.

Even if it wasn't interpreted that way, the rule does not state what the horse is to be 'examined' for... such as "obvious faults in conformation". And, it doesn't say that the horse must meet any particular 'standard' to be granted registration, only that it be examined.

I understand what you are trying to accomplish and can see the merit in the idea, but I don't think this proposal will get the full result that you are aiming for.

 

[LaVern]

Oh, Gee you are probably right. I just took it off the way they had it written when they let the others hardship, and it flew for them. But, I think that you are right. I hope they don't do something with the proposal it if it is not written right. We need time to think these things through. And have much discussion amongst our AMHR membership.

Inspection - how do they inspect the Shetland and Falabellas now? Besides the height, do they check for testicle on mature stallion? Do they check for locking stifles or a vet record of surgery for locking stifles,or off bites, bad rear ends? I don't know and perhaps what the inspection entails should be covered. And then it is up to the judge I suppose to be able to tell what these faults are, Some of them don't even seem to know. But again I think you are right, we don't want a proposal to go through if it is vague.

I hope that some one can write it better, but I did write it just as it was written already in the rule book before. Guess I will hear soon if it was too vague.

We should have a profession proposal writer people. You go and put a ( ) around something and boom it changes what you mean. This is hard stuff and no wonder people don't try to get there ideas presented.

I think that is why there is trouble sometimes. It seems that there is two Rule Books. One for the average guy and the other for those that can afford to get someone to figure out some thing that was written wrong so they can get it interpreted any way they want.

 

[LaVern]

Just got a call from some one asking about DNA on hardship horses. Should we require DNA in order to hardship. Maybe because, we have the same miniature horses registered more than one time with different names. Also just found out than even when the Shetlands come in their name can be changed. What a mess.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Personally until AMHR decides to start implementing DNA on its own breeding horses I don't think we should start it with the hardshipped horses.

 

[Minimor]

I agree with JMS--until AMHR horses in general require DNA I don't think we should (nor do I even think we CAN) require hardshipped horses to have DNA done.

 

[LaVern]

We could encourage it though, and if the AMHA have to be three year olds to come in it is already done. They have to be DNA'd before they go perm in AMHA, so it is already done. We could take advantage of that. I was told by a director that you can simply have the Cal Davis stuff sent and transferred.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

In AMHA they must be DNA'd in order for them to have registered offspring or if they are not registered by the time they are over 2 years old, not so they can go perm, and I agree if they are already DNA'd thru Davis they should be able to send in a copy of that report to AMHR at the time of hardship and be reflected on their papers which I know they already do so.

 

[LaVern]

I heard from one of the AMHR directors that they got my letter of explanation and a copy of my proposal. Thank you to that director for taking the time.

 

[R3]

It is hard to write a rule or by-law that says what you want it to say, and not be open to alternate interpretations. I have served on the AMHA Rules and By-laws Committees, and we had to read through new rule proposals and try to make sure what the person was really wanting. Often, it wasn't completely clear in the initial proposal, but we could go back to the submitter and have them clarify it. We couldn't change any wording for them, but they could submit their own corrections before the proposal went forward to anyone outside the committee. If a proposal is worded vaguely and too open to interpretation, it may cause the proposal to be voted down, even if the 'intent' is a good one.

I would imagine that your proposal would need to include a part that said something along the lines of...

To be eligible for a hardship registration, the Horse must also be inspected by an AMHR approved judge and found to be free of inheritable defects...

But, even at that, I'm still not sure that it would be clear enough that it could be consistantly enforced. And, that is the other thing that a rule has to be able to do, to be enforced uniformly. If there is inconsistancy in enforcement, then it sets the Registry up for law-suits, as someone whose horse has been denied registration may sue because another horse that they think has the the same or 'worse' defects IS allowed registration.

These are just some things that I found out about. It never occurred to me that people actually had to consider the possibiliyof lawsuits when deciding if a proposal was going to be approved.

 

[LaVern]

Thank you so much for posting R3. So good to hear from some that has actually had something to do with this. I have heard from many who say leave it as it is and then many that say I did this wrong or that wrong. What is gospel to one is not to another.

So many times when we gripe about something, everyone jumps on and says, " Well, if you don't like it summit a proposal for change." It is not that easy. And then assessing the legality of stuff.

It seems that it should be pretty easy to say. All horses that are to be hard shipped into AMHR are treated the same way. I thought that is what I said.

 

[LaVern]

Up-date. I just talked to the office and they received my proposal and it has gone to or will go to (I can't remember which she said) to the Rules Committee. Hot Dang