Shetland Influence

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Sorry to switch gears here.....
default_wink.png


If you (talking general "you" terms here as anyone can answer this) were the judge at a show and a distinct hackney type looking mini was showing in halter against a bunch of others in a over div. class. How do you judge that against the other types out there? That has got to be extremely hard to judge in a halter class.

I'd really like to learn.
default_saludando.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Russ, I'd judge them as to who was the best representative of their particular "type." As dogs are judged in the Best of Show class.

From what I've seen, even without the ASPC-registered horses, there is no one distinct miniature horse "type." I won't name names (partly because my memory for names really sucks), but a quick review of minis I admire brings to mind delicate, refined sort and the more "baroque"-style, yet equally beautiful examples.
 
I am following a lot of what JMS is saying and she is bringing up many points I agree with.
default_biggrin.png


I have nothing against Shetlands, I just don't want one and prefer to stay with A size horses.

I do appreciate the minis who have longer legs and a sleeker body type with pretty movement VS the older style counterparts--- the short legged fat squatty types for better lack of description. If anyone wants to look at it from a heath standpoint, moving away from that old type of conformation where you can't get the weight off of them and they are a founder looking for a place to happen, is reason alone to modernize for the sake of their own health and well being.

It is possible to be able to move forward and to modernize the A size mini without having to jump on the shetland bandwagon for those that care to stay A size. So many have done that successfully with on going tweaking their breeding program with the absence of out crossing to a shetland.
 
Sorry, LaVern... but I don't believe it's only the ASPC horses that have falsified papers. I think there are plenty of AMHR animals out there where you can "put any stallion you like on that foal's papers..."Andrea

Happens in ASPC, AMHR and AMHA dishonesty doesnt just reside within any one registry. And I have a mini here AMHR registered not ASPC registered whose grandam is a Hackney according to her R papers

I do love the ponies and I do love the minis which is why I have both
default_smile.png
I just wish each would be recognized for the wonderful horses they are either registered together or standing on single papers alone but then again I wish we lived in a color blind world where everyone could get along and things like sexual orintation didnt matter one bit..
 
A few months ago I did a blog post here on LB about the "mini people vs shetland people" Its so sad. I dont know what I am as I have had shetlands and minis equally as long. So what does that make me? Like Jason said we all love small equine, we are all members of the same registry. We really need to stop dividing ourselves and work together to get changes made.

Measuring is a problem no matter what size or division you are showing in. Amha has measuring problems as does Amhr, Aspc Until the membership bands together and makes it change nothing will be done.

I do feel open discussion is a great thing

As for temperments I have seen plenty of miniatures I would not let a child handle and plenty of Shetlands. People who come to my farm or see my Shetlands at shows are amazed at how friendly they are. And I lend out Shetlands to kids to show who dont have their own. How they are handled also has a lot to do with it

As for stories I remember a few years back being at Congress and watching the local news come in to do a story. A person from the office mistakenly told the camera crew it was AMHR Miniature Nationals instead of ASPC Shetland pony Congress. So you see mistakes like that just get made because everyone is human and make mistakes

Russ---Part of the problem is there is not a "set type" for a miniature horse. So it wouldnt matter if a hackney looking horse competed in the B division. If you read the miniature standard it is very vague. So all the judge can do is judge conformation and judge according to the standard in the rule book.

But back to the original question about the Shetland influence. Again if its not something you like dont add it to your herd. Keep doing what you are doing. Again that is why small equine are so fun as there is a type/horse for everyone
 
My perpetual question, which I have asked many times and no one has answered yet, is why? Why turn the miniature horse into a miniature shetland pony? Why not add a height division to the Shetland registry as miniature shetland?

The registries were going different paths, were developing different types and were distinct and separate in their goals. Why put all the small shetland ponies in and why, if you are going to let the shetland ponies cross register, shut out all other pony breeds?

Why the continuing argument that miniature horses did not have a type so making them pony types is the best way to go. Shetland ponies do not have a type either, they have many types and show by type yet all types of miniature horses/miniature ponies are forced to show together.

Why not offer the horse market both options, increase our market share by keeping the registries unique and different instead of narrowing it by essentially making two registries identical except for the height limit? Atracting more people to the fun and pleasure of owning small equines, not turning those away that do not care for the hotter style of showing and moving ponies bring?

And yes I owned shetlands and minis for many years, I like and admire shetland ponies but my choice was to raise miniature horses. It's not about liking one breed over another it's about keeping both breeds distinct.

ps. and no nonsense about being only a height registry, if AMHR was only a height registry than ANY horse under 38" could be registered.
 
Stormy it was only a few years ago that AMHR closed the books to hardshipping. Until then if it measured 38 or under you could register it weather it was a welsh, quarter etc.

To answer your question of why----I feel that by putting the Shetland blood back into the miniatures we get a miniature with better hips, necks and movement. But again keep in mind that many older Shetland families ALWAYS bred small ponies that were miniature height. So many think its new but its not. Its just that more are out showing and winning so people notice more.

My question is if you dont like the ASPC/AMHR then dont buy them----but why does anyone care that I do??

One thing I know for sure is if they were not winning no one would care and there would not be nearly as many posts about them. (no a horse doesnt win just because its aspc/amhr)

Shetland ponies do not have a type either, they have many types and show by type yet all types of miniature horses/miniature ponies are forced to show together.
Shetlands have divisions and are shown by type -- so many times you can see a foundation horse but it will be shown classic because that is the "type" it fits into

If you all feel that strongly that miniatures should be shown by division/type then get together, write it up and present it at Convention!
 
Lisa, usually I agree with you, but not this time. I don't want to live in a color blind world. I love color and differences. It is what makes our country so great. I love living in a place were we can all come to the dinner table with our differences. As long as we all get a chance to say what is on our mind. It is only when we are stifled and not given the opportunity to state our opinions that I get worried.

My family is very close but very divided politically and man is it fun at the Holidays.
 
Honestly it seems like judging in AMHR anymore for halter it seems like a color class, judges are always going to pick a certain type that they like, you can't tell me that isn't true.

As far as shetlands not getting the attention they deserve why are they having such a hard time then? I would think the shetlands would be very popular for the children for they also have the riding classes, and the driving classes. I would think the shetlands would be very kid friendly and family oriented. I know the minis can be too but I think the ponies would be more popular, honestly. I had always wondered that. I had been to one Congress back when it was in St. Louis and I thought they were just awesome, especially the riding classes. So am I totally against shetlands no.
 
Kay I am very much in disagreement with you on the Shetland influence improving necks, hips and movement. Adding shetland blood, esp modern, has changed the type of neck, hip and movement, to me and my personel preferance to the negative making the neck very narrow often with a dip in front of the withers, some call it swan neck...others call it camel neck.

As for the hip I prefer a hip long and fairly flat WITHOUT stretching. To me the shetlands are fairly goose rumped when set square, good length but not level.

As for the movement, coming from a dressage background the excessive action, elbow knocking gait of the modern is not something I would consider an improvement. I much prefer a long ground covering stride with the knee not going above level. My biggest fear is the type will go to shoes, weights and tailsets in AMHR as it does in ASPC..

The Miniature horse had been improving by selective breeding without the influx of shetland blood, all breeds strive to continue to improve.

I do not make these comments to slam the shetland, they are built to move in that high and hot style. I just want to point out there are many opinions about what is better for the breed. Some like it hot, some do not.

This is not about winning either, my horses bring home the ribbons just fine, it is about losing the Miniature Horse. There is a Shetland Registry, the Shetland is not in danger and can develop along its path within its registry. I would like to see the Miniature Horse have the same opportunity offering more options to those who would like to become a part of the small equine world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stormy I think the problem is you are so focused on one division - Modern! Yes there are moderns getting small enough to be B divsion, but the majority are foundation/classic. I dont understand why the first thing that comes to peoples minds is Modern Shetlands??? Maybe because they are so flashy and stick in peoples minds?? Remember for classic and foundation the type of movement is in their standard and anything extreme is to be penalized.

The classic and/or foundation shetlands are the ones that produced the first miniatures

IMO the biggest problem facing miniatures right now is upward fixation of the patella. This is a conformation problem that keeps getting bred back in because a lot either dont see it or ignore it and breed the horse anyway. All you have to do is a search here on LB to see what a huge problem it is. While there can be Shetlands with this it is not nearly as prevelant as it is in miniatures. So many minis have very small hips and the back leg is too straight causing upward fixation of the patella
 
but you never hear of a shetland farm or person going mini....wonder why?
There have very likely been many...that is why the AMHR was first developed wasn't it...from what I have always read...a place to market the smaller shetlands and market them as something new and more valuable??

As for a shetland farm or person going from shetlands to miniatures...Tony Greaves and his family is the first that comes to mind.

I love the look of most of the shetlands, (except for those with long plain convex heads) but not too crazy about the extreme action of the moderns. I figure if I wanted a hackney pony...I can very well buy one...so why do the sheltands have to pretend they are hackneys? THAT is what I fear will become of the miniatures...unless we right at the start...set them as types, just as the shetland registry has done, before they are all mini-shackneys.
 
IMO the biggest problem facing miniatures right now is upward fixation of the patella. This is a conformation problem that keeps getting bred back in because a lot either dont see it or ignore it and breed the horse anyway. All you have to do is a search here on LB to see what a huge problem it is. While there can be Shetlands with this it is not nearly as prevelant as it is in miniatures. So many minis have very small hips and the back leg is too straight causing upward fixation of the patella

I have to slightly disagree here I have seen many many many poorly conformed shetlands with horrible hind ends and stifles that are so straight you know they lock. I know in fact off the top of my head 3 people who had shetlands with stifle surgery in the past year.

I think in small equine it is more common then in large and I think or I should say my guess is it is more common in the classic and foundation then the moderns my guess again is due to the hackney influence and bringing other breeds in.

I think that is one thing that upsets others although I am talking for them and guessing is that it seems to be both ways.

Minis are Shetlands and came from Shetlands however somehow Shetlands have none of the issues that minis do and are all together better conformation and better quality.

There is good and bad conformation and quality in both. All it takes is searching some sites to find very poor quality ponies out there as well as minis and sadly both are in abundence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kay Kay. Those are the ones that scare me. And those are the ones that a few of the top trainers will gravitate to. Some judges will go with them at Nationals and there we go. What wins at Nationals helps determine which direction our Miniatures go. But if they are within the height limits they have just as much right to be there as anyone else.
 
Lisa I agree it can be a problem in ponies too (as I said above) but imo is it not nearly as huge as it is in miniatures. There will always be poor quality horses in any breed. I am just answering her question about why I breed them so that is just for me. Other breeders can chime in on why they do
default_smile.png


Lavern I guess I have not seen all these Moderns showing B division that people talk about. Living and showing in Ohio I am in pretty big pony country and just dont see them. Every once in a while but cant think of even one I have seen this year??

Anyway this has been a great conversation if nothing else

so why do the sheltands have to pretend they are hackneys?
Again you are referring to Modern division.

Here is one of our ASPC/AMHR mares HP Jerichos Peaceable Star. This farm has always been known for breeding mini size shetlands. I dont think there is anything hackney about her.

StarrifzDM05-258x206.jpg


StarNeck-272x169.jpg


Here is her filly from this year pictured at 10 hours old and not all the way unfolded. I think you would be hard pressed to know that she is ASPC/AMHR if you came here and didnt know. She was approx 21" at birth. Ten L's Tigers Back In Black is the sire

starfillygreat-318x338.jpg


fillyheadshot-270x244.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Selective breeding and conformation. That's what it's all about! To get the most/almost "perfect" horse (and everyone has a different idea of perfect).

My stallion is only 32" and throws very straight legs and downsizes from most mares. He has, so far, thrown Appy into his get just to make the color pick exciting. But he has so little action that he has to go in the Western driving class. Yes, he got a championship in it for his size but he's no FUN to drive.

My husband is "into" geneology so we looked up Awesome's family tree. If we go back enough generations we find really nasty looking miniatures (they resemble tiny wooly mamoths) but we also find shetlands and hackneys (yes, hackneys).

So if they can "breed down" my thoughts would be to "breed up" to not only the size we desire but the look (conformation) and action we want!

Like I said before, if the ASPC/AMHR is what's winning in the "B" division then that's what I'd want to show (if I showed in B).
 
My biggest fear is the type will go to shoes, weights and tailsets in AMHR as it does in AMHA.
Stormy,

I was not going to post on this thread, but seeing this made me have to say something.

Where did you get the idea that AMHA driving horses wore shoes and had their tails set? A horse with a tailset or shoes would be kicked out of the show ring. Although I have seen tailsets at some AMHR shows. As for using weights and other means for training a driving horse. Both AMHA and AMHR trainers for the most part, put atificial motion on their horses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AMHR does have a Park class, which according to the rules you can add a tail set. No Shoes allowed.
 
My mistake in typing, I fear the AMHR miniature if it continues with the Shetland influence will be forced to wear shoes, weights, tailsets, etc as the shetlands (ASPC) do.

And as for focusing on one division remember I owned Shetlands for many years, classics...the classics have gone to the more extreme movement and type as well following the moderns, but at least in the Shetland registry you have another option as to division. All of my Shetlands could have been registered foundation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My mistake in typing, I fear the AMHR miniature if it continues with the Shetland influence will be forced to wear shoes, weights, tailsets, etc as the shetlands (ASPC) do.
Not even in the ASPC do all horses have the above mentioned. I am taking 4 horses to Congress this next week and none have shoes, weights or tailsets. And they have been showing very well this year in their classes.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top