Reasons for Rule Change

[eastminis]

Rule Change - Measuring at the Base of the Withers

To Answer some questions and give you my opinion as to why I proposed this rule change.

My name is Toni Reece - AMHA Director - Region 3, I have been a member for 21 years and have been on the AMHA Board of Directors for half of that time - I own around 200 horses, I Breed, Raise and Show Horses and have a Training Center. So I do feel qualified, and spent a lot of time on this. I support many Miniature Horse Functions, Sales, Shows, Youth, Amateur, etc. I think this is very important that we support each other. So I do understand about horses, and I do this for a living and want what is Best for the Miniature Horse be it AMHA or AMHR. I am a member of both Associations and most my horses are double registered.

To Change a rule it must be submitted before the close of the National Meeting. It takes two years to make a rule change and must go through the proper channels. It was published in Miniature Horse World, and on the web site. I had no one in my region address anything negative about this rule change to me. ( As a matter of fact this rule change was published the year before, but couldn't be voted on because it was not written properly).This rule went to Show Rules and was passed, then it was brought to the Floor. It was discussed in great detail, it was passed by the membership, with a few disagreeing votes. So the majority rules. If you want to change this Rule you must follow the same steps.

Reasons for changing this rule. First a little History - Our Forefathers, the ones that started this 34 inch and under Registry, came to this agreement. As some wanted to measure at the withers, some at the base of the withers, so they came to a medium and measured at the last mane hair. They also couldn't decide on a name and we were almost called the Midget Pony Association. Barbara Ashby was at the National Meeting and she was at the Meeting that decided to measure at the last mane hair, and she supported this rule change.

1.Main Reason - We are breeding Miniature Horses that look like a carbon copy of a Big Horse, they have refinement, withers, and long elegant necks. Old time Miniatures had no withers, some no necks and some no legs, they were just little midgets and conformation didn't mean anything as long as they were small and the smaller the horse, the bigger the price. (Don't anyone take offense to this as I am talking about when this started).We have come so far in the last 10 years that its mind boggling how good our horses have become. We are loosing a lot of these horses because we are measuring at the last mane hair, I feel that the base of the withers is a better place to measure these horses( the ones with pronounced withers and no mane to the base), to keep what we are breeding for in this registry.

2. Another reason choosing base rather then top of withers - I know all other breeds use the top of the withers, why because they like taller (Big) horses. We like the smaller ones and we are different, we are a height registry. I would like to see us a Breed Registry but at this time we are not. As far as European horse, if they want to have AMHA sanctioned Shows they need to measure like we do. I don't think we need to measure they way they do. Measuring at the top of the withers will certainly make our horses taller, I don't think that is what we want. Measuring at the Base will keep the measuring about the same or depending on how high the wither is. may make them a little shorter, but it will allow for the withers.

3.When you go to a Show, the measurer decides where the last mane hair is. It can be dyed, hair sprayed and even has been glued on. This will hopefully stop that. Measuring should be done properly, the first time and everyone should be measured the same. We need measurers with integrity and also desperately need Show Stewards. The base of the withers is very easy to find, if your horses has no withers then what are you worrying about, it will be flat and will measure the same, as the back would be level with no wither.

4. I think this will affect a lot of driving horses and I think you will see a lot more of them. They have withers!

5. As far as changing your horses measurement, it will all fall in place, as this does not go into affect until January 2009 and we will be working this all out. You may have a horse that will need to be reinstated.

6. The members that don't like this rule change. You need to do your homework and come to the National Meeting and express your opinion and vote. Or at least let your Director know how you feel. As we Vote for what we think is in your best interest and the Miniatures Horse.

Thank You,

Respectfully.

Toni Reece

Reece Family Miniatures

 

[Relic]

Even though l don't agree with the new system of measuring thankyou for posting..l'm curious if the minis were to be measured at the top of the withers would that also mean they would be measured in hands not inches??

 

[bingo]

We are loosing a lot of these horses because we are measuring at the last mane hair, I feel that the base of the withers is a better place to measure these horses( the ones with pronounced withers and no mane to the base), to keep what we are breeding for in this registry.

Toni Reece

Reece Family Miniatures

Well I do thank you for being honest in the reasoning for this new rule.

For saying that the bottom line was to pass a rule to enable larger horses into this registry without having to admit- say publicly that AMHA allows larger then 34 inch horses.

Now don't get me wrong I don't feel this is a bad decision in fact I feel it was one that was bound to happen. I do think that it is deceptive to the general public but again I think in the long run allowing over 34 inch horses into AMHA or back into AMHA will only help the breed in the future by continuing to allow everyone a size to choose in their breeding programs.

 

[Kim]

This rule went to Show Rules and was passed, then it was brought to the Floor. It was discussed in great detail, it was passed by the membership, with a few disagreeing votes. So the majority rules. If you want to change this Rule you must follow the same steps.

Thanks for your great explanation of the background behind the measuring change. I don't necessarily disagree with the change (although I do have a concern that in practicality it will lead to even more "cheating" than we see going on now), but my concern is that members were not properly informed that it was in the works.

As I mentioned on another thread, according to the June 2007 BOD meeting minutes, which are posted on the AMHA website, and which I did read prior to the 2008 Annual Meeting, the Show Rules Committee FAILED both the bottom of the withers and the top of the withers proposals. I thought if the Show Rules Committee failed a proposed rule change, that rule change did NOT go to the members to be voted on at an Annual Meeting. What am I missing here?

 

[hobbyhorse23]

2. Another reason choosing base rather then top of withers - I know all other breeds use the top of the withers, why because they like taller (Big) horses. We like the smaller ones and we are different, we are a height registry.

Or maybe it's because it was the one logical, unequivocal, easy to find spot??

Pony breeds like the Welsh use the withers too and they certainly aren't breeding for taller animals than the breed standard allows.

Measuring at the top of the withers will certainly make our horses taller, I don't think that is what we want. Measuring at the Base will keep the measuring about the same or depending on how high the wither is. may make them a little shorter, but it will allow for the withers.

You can call a sheep's tail a leg if you want to but the fact is the sheep still has four legs and a tail. Measuring an animal differently does NOT make them taller or shorter!!

I'm sorry, this is just not logical and that drives me insane. Bingo is right- all AMHA is doing is redefining "34 inches" to be larger than it was so you (AMHA) can sneak in horses you want that don't qualify. Give me a break! Either breed them legitimately smaller or raise the height limit, don't try to make tall horses fit the existing height rules. Keep the books open so their smaller offspring will be eligible in the future if you're that concerned about losing the bloodlines.

I do appreciate that you took the time to share your reasoning with us and thank you sincerely for all your hard work on behalf of the breed. You are completely right that if we want to make a change it is our job as members to step forward and take action.

I personally will save some money by not rejoining the AMHA, continue to show my miniature with the big guys at driving events and avoid all this nonsense like the plague.

It's no wonder serious horsemen think we're insane.

Leia (who is diving back under her rock on this topic and already regretting opening her mouth.

Sorry!)

 

[lildrummer]

Thank you!

lildrummer

 

[Southern_Heart]

Toni, Thanks for posting that.. I think its a good idea!!

Joyce

 

[skanzler]

Leia,

thank you, you took words right out of my mouth. Let's call a horse a horse no matter what....

All this rule does is allow those that have oversize or squeakers a way to measure in.....

It does not change the true height of the horse. This has to do with bone structure. It can not be changed no matter where you measure. The true height of the horse is measured from the coronet band to the top of the wither........This is and always will be the height of your horse.

You could use the middle of the back and it wouldn't make a difference. Your horse will still be the same height.

For your horse to be truely balanced he should be equal at all quadrants...... let's get back to conformation for pete's sake. Let's get back to overall balance.... This is where the mini's got into trouble in the first place.

 

[Shari]

Can I get my papers back on 2 horses I turned in for being OVER last summer? They might measure in with the new rule.. I want to know??

I would also like to know. I turned in Theia's paperwork because she was a bit over with the old measurement.

She has tall withers and where the hair ends..didn't make much difference. But measured at the base... will have to double check that later today.

You are right about the withers.. both Maggie and Theia have a good set of rather high withers.

 

[Irish Hills Farm]

I'm sorry but it still makes absolutely no sense. All that this post has provided is another spin on the topic.

We are no longer breeding for the no legged, no neck, no withers, plug of a miniature horse. We are breeding refined, leggy miniature horses who look like their large counter parts. Maybe the rules need to be adjusted accordingly. Heck if we are breeding these horses to look like their counter parts, why not measure them the same way to?

If AMHA wants to be creditable and more forward, the smart thing to do would've been to measure the horse at the top of the withers and adjust the height limit to 35" or 36".

As others have stated, when explaining how we measure our miniatures to other people, it can be difficult at times with all the why questions that usually follow the explanation. I can only imagine what others/new comers are going to think now, especially since so many of us who already own miniatures are finding this hard to swollow.

 

[Mona]

1.Main Reason - We are breeding Miniature Horses that look like a carbon copy of a Big Horse, they have refinement, withers, and long elegant necks. Old time Miniatures had no withers, some no necks and some no legs, they were just little midgets and conformation didn't mean anything as long as they were small and the smaller the horse, the bigger the price. (Don't anyone take offense to this as I am talking about when this started).We have come so far in the last 10 years that its mind boggling how good our horses have become. We are loosing a lot of these horses because we are measuring at the last mane hair, I feel that the base of the withers is a better place to measure these horses( the ones with pronounced withers and no mane to the base), to keep what we are breeding for in this registry.

I personally do not feel this is correct at all. We may be losing some, but better to lose a few than to bring in MANY more that are actually OVER 34" when AMHA tots itself as being the "true" Miniature Horse Registry of minis only 34" and under! A horse is a horse of course of course, so moving the measuring spot is not changing the actual height of any horse. Yes, there will be some that may not make it because of high spot at the end of the mane, but that has always been the case...you can't please everyone.

2. Another reason choosing base rather then top of withers - I know all other breeds use the top of the withers, why because they like taller (Big) horses. We like the smaller ones and we are different, we are a height registry.

If this is the case, that we like them small, well this new way of measuring is only bringing them in TALLER not smaller.

Measuring at the top of the withers will certainly make our horses taller, I don't think that is what we want. Measuring at the Base will keep the measuring about the same or depending on how high the wither is. may make them a little shorter, but it will allow for the withers.

This statement to me, sounds exactly opposite of how I see it. Measuring at the yop of the wither would allow shorter horses in at the top end, and measuring at the base will allow taller horses into the registry. I know the horse is the same height no matter what, but I am using a horse currently measured with the "last mane hair" method, in comparison to the top or base of withers methods.

5. As far as changing your horses measurement, it will all fall in place, as this does not go into affect until January 2009 and we will be working this all out. You may have a horse that will need to be reinstated.

Isn't this the type of thing that is supposed to be thought out and agreed upon before new rules are passed?

Thank You, Toni for posting and explaining, even though I do personally STRONGLY disagree with it. I think this is a HUGE, GIANT STEP BACKWARDS for the AMHA.

 

[Lost Spoke Ranch]

Thank you for explaining the reasons and history behind the new rule change, Toni.

I must admit coming from large horses before miniatures 15 years ago, Quarter Horses and POA’s before that, I raised an eyebrow at the notion of measuring at the last hairs of the mane.

However, having known how AMHA measures I still chose to become a lifetime member and still don’t have a problem with wherever they decide to measure. Bottom of the withers, top of the withers, or anywhere in-between, so long as its helpful in coming up with a more consistent measurement. There isn’t anything more disappointing than for your horse to measure in at the shows all year long and than not measure in at the World.

I am confident AMHA will continue to be good stewards for the smaller horses. I also want to mention, at least with our herd, the new measuring scheme doesn’t appear to be making our taller horses smaller, but the contrary by approximately ¼” on average. I can live with that.

Thank you again Toni

Dawn

 

[nootka]

Add me to the still inimpressed with the new rule.

YES, I still feel like AMHA is my registry of choice, but if this goes through, I do NOT see it being any advancement towards more consistent measurement.

Not one bit helpful, in fact I would rather things stayed the same than change to THIS new bit of craziness.

I have NO CLUE where this dip at the withers should be, and have no real idea of how to go about measuring my horses for it. I am fairly familiar with horse structure, and the withers is simple for me, as well the last hairs of the mane, though I have tried to go towards the withers, myself, anyway.

I would not support any change except to measure to the withers.

I've seen and heard the abuse we've gone through with the way it is, now, and anything but a change to measure at the withers is stepping backwards.

Consistency is not possible in any other way, IMO.

Edited to add that you can't make any horse bigger or smaller simply by changing where it's measured. You CAN adjust the perception of height, but then that's largely true of many horses I know who are nationally titled. The truth of the matter is a lot easier to prove or disprove if there is a consistent measuring point.

The only choice is the top of the withers. Anything else is just too easily mistaken, hard to locate, or just plain manipulated.

As to getting to National meetings to vote, I truly am not able to spare the time and expense just for that one purpose. If that makes my vote unnecessary for the future of the breed/association, then I will likely have to leave it if it gets taken in a direction I don't like. I am a small hobby breeder who holds myself to a higher standard just because I don't have to worry about what others will buy or won't buy, or whom I upset and can't do business with because they don't like my opinions. My income doesn't depend on being popular/the horses. I am sorry but I can't leave my family for several days merely to go vote. There needs to be a better way, and I have asked for this repeatedly.

Liz

 

[susanne]

Am I the only one who keeeps thinking of the mockumentary, "This Is Spinal Tap," with the bloke who brags that "me amp goes to 11, cuz 11 is louder than 10."

...or is it like junior high girls shopping for jeans, willing to pay any ridiculous amount if the manufacturer's sizing system allowed us to fit into a smaller size?

If you still feel good about yourself while believing such double-speak then more power to you.

 

[Shari]

I personally have never liked measuring at the withers...and for this reason.

Say I look at a fjord.. one has average withers the other(13.3)...razor like tall withers(14.2).

One is 13.3 hands the other is 14.2 hands. Measure just after the withers on the back and the 13.3 hand mare is taller.

The main height of the horse is where I ride, what I concider the true height. I do not ride the top of the withers.

Just because one horse had taller withers...doesn't in my thoughts make it a taller horse.

Another case... my grey Ice mare is 12.3 hands tall..and no withers whats so ever. The Blk Ice mare I had.. 13.1 hands tall.

Difference... backs were near on the same height... blk mare was only taller because she had a taller wither.

With the mini's... can't see measuring at the top of the withers as any better. I could put one of my mini's next to someone elses. Theirs has average or no withers, mine with the really tall withers.. backs are both the same height. But my mare would be concidered couple inches taller just because of her withers. That just doesn't make since to me.

 

[Minimor]

Measuring at the top of the withers will certainly make our horses taller, I don't think that is what we want.

I'm sorry, but that is the funniest statement I've heard all day. It doesn't matter if you measure at the top of the withers, the bottom of the withers, the lowest point in the back, the last mane hair, the highest point of the hip or the top of the tail--the horse is still going to be just as tall as he really is! By measuring at a lower point on the withers/back you can make the horse SOUND smaller, but you aren't actually making him smaller!

Continuing to insist that this new measurement means that horses will be smaller while denying that it is letting taller horses into the registry is just a farce, and all it's doing is making the miniature breed look even more ridiculous to the rest of the equine world. Truth is, other horse people already find it pretty silly that the last mane hair is used for measuring Minis, and when they get to know of this new measurement method, they are going find it quite amusing. From bad to worse....

In a lifetime with horses, I've never before heard anyone else say that we measure big horses at the top of the wither because we want them to be bigger. If we wanted horses to be bigger I guess we would breed them to be upheaded, and we would measure them at the top of the poll...the higher the head the bigger the horse??

The few staunch supporters of this new rule sure do come up with some creative justification for it.

I think that in the long run this rule will hurt the registry, especially overseas. If another registry were to come up with a rule change that has their breed of Minis measuring at the top of the wither--I see that creating a lot of interest in an alternative to AMHA in the overseas market. I could be wrong, but that is what I'm getting from what I'm hearing from various people.

 

[maestoso]

All of you who are griping about this rule change....... how many of you followed the proper protocol to oppose it????

 

[susanne]

Those strongly opposed to this ludicrous rule change can always state their horse's height as:

33RW / 32AMHA

(RW = real world)

 

[Elsa]

As a "big horse" person, reading about all of this makes me snicker. If you want to be respected by the rest of the horse world, conform to the measuring standards of the rest of the horse world instead of trying to be different and complicated. Atleast the top of the withers is widely accepted. JMO

 

[Michelle@wescofarms]

Good one Susanne!

I was actually thinking after reading this that I'm going to start measuring my horses at the top of the withers and list that along with the 'AMHA' measurement - assuming I can find it - and the AMHR last mane hair - that way a buyer can believe whichever measurement floats their boat as to how tall that horse is!

Another reason choosing base rather then top of withers - I know all other breeds use the top of the withers, why because they like taller (Big) horses. We like the smaller ones and we are different, we are a height registry.

Toni - that was a wonderful explanation of why people voted for this new measuring standard, but come on - no one can believe the horses are actually going to be any different or this is a wonderful advancement to our industry - please! The only benefit is allowing horses that have been pushing the stick some breathing room on height to retain their papers and be shown. If we truly 'liked' the smaller ones the breed standard would be concentrated on perfecting the 'smaller' minis, not trying to measure in those at the top of the height allowance.

As for working to change this or any rule - the process borders on overwhelming for anyone that has not been involved with the registry as to wording/timing/etc. Personally, I find this new measuring a stupid manipulation to allow taller horses in, - I don't care that they're taller in fact I non-show papered oversized mini from AMHA registred parents should be allowed - but to change this new measuring technique, I don't have the time or interest to attempt to work to change it.

So, I'll grumble and complain, explain this sillyness to buyers and go along with it as the majority will. As long as voting by the membership is confined to members attending the convention, the running of the AMHA will be conducted by the 10% of the members that can/do attend the meetings.