The Problem with Measuring

[Teresa]

I agree with you, Ed and the others. I think that the measurers must be trained and held responsible for obvious mis-measuring. Not only is it the going over the 34" that presents problems but measuring wrong in any size category. I have seen 28" and under senior world winning champion horses have their height listed as 29 or more on their AMHA papers. Now how can that be?

I would recommend that those that measure have to have earned qualifications. I am not sure what qualifications are required now, but I do know that at a local show I was asked to watch the measuring and make a call if I felt it was not done correctly....................Done correctly.....this was my first show and the first measuring I had ever watched. I thought the job was to make sure no one got to close and got kicked. I definately was not qualified to do what I was asked to do.

 

[user 488]

JMO, I have been one of the unfortunate members that was asked to measure at an AMHA show. OH! Well, I can tell you that I was ordered by several well known members to be sure their horse didn't measure over 34 in. I also was cussed at if a horse didn't measure under 32 in. several times.

I

That's disgusting! The people that are cussing you out and threatening you should be SUSPENDED! I said this years ago when it was brought up before. Nobody should have to put up with this. If this is what these so called big shots have to resort to in order to win then they need to find another profession. If this happened in some other breeds..........their ARSES would be escorted off the show grounds.

 

[Miniv]

JMO, I have been one of the unfortunate members that was asked to measure at an AMHA show. OH! Well, I can tell you that I was ordered by several well known members to be sure their horse didn't measure over 34 in. I also was cussed at if a horse didn't measure under 32 in. several times.

I

That's disgusting! The people that are cussing you out and threatening you should be SUSPENDED! I said this years ago when it was brought up before. Nobody should have to put up with this. If this is what these so called big shots have to resort to in order to win then they need to find another profession. If this happened in some other breeds..........their ARSES would be escorted of the show grounds.

I agree..........and Ed Sisk addressed that too..........Measurers should be people of AUTHORITY. They should have received training and know the rule book.........Anyone who treats them with disrespect should be escorted off. If there is a question about the measurement there are standard procedures the horse owner or trainer can follow. Period.

 

[Marty]

Question please?

I don't show so I do not have a clue: Where do you get the people to measure the horses; how are they chosen?

 

[MinisOutWest]

VERY WELL SAID............

ACCOUNTABILITY is the right word for everyone, from the bottom rung of the ladder all the way to the top.

We, as members, need to step up and do something about, elections will be coming up and now is the time to figure out what needs to be done, like- how to submit correctly the proposal for absentee ballots, so for those who cannot attend the convention- can still vote- your voice as a member can still be heard. I would- but I have my hands full with AMHR with adding amateur classes to the National show. So I am very busy with that and getting it done correctly. It is not hard to do, just takes about 2 days of your time at the beginning and little off and on from there.

The way the measuring rules are going, I will be able to hardship my 36" gelding here pretty soon into AMHA.

JUST JOKING!!

 

[Tony]

Good post, Ed. Thanks.

 

[Tango]

Thank you, Ed! I applaud you!

As far as threats and verbal abuse to the those who measure - I have always thought that an owner or trainer of the horse to be measured should not be allowed to be the one that holds the horse for measuring. The horse should be handed off to an "official handler" that would set the horse up properly and hold it to be measured. There should be some type of divided area (a short fence or wall) where the owners and trainers have to stand behind and away from their horse (but where they could watch the measuring too.) All of the measuring can be filmed for proof of measurment. If an owner or trainer threatens or verbally abuses an "official" that should be grounds for immediate disqualification. The measuring officials should have all the power of a baseball umpire and be able to throw those people "out of the game." You wouldn't argue or dare to verbally abuse a TD (Technical Director) at a CDE event! You would be thrown off the grounds and could be suspended from even competing again!

I don't know if this is done now or has been done in the past, but there should be a measurement card (a continuous measurement record) that follows the horse's entire show career. Each time the horse is measured, the card should be presented to the official and they date it, put in the height, and the official needs to sign it. That card can then be called upon if there is a protest to see what heights that horse has been measured at in the past. That way the officials are held accountable too.

And before anyone remarks or complains that their horse would act up or not stand still if someone else were holding it, sorry, that should be no excuse.

Nikki

 

[Riverdance]

But about doing what is right

AMHR has it's own measuring problems. In AMHR you have had an Over horse win the whole Nationals then come back 2 years later and win it again as an under horse.

Could this simply be a case of the .25 inch allowence you are all wanting for protests? I was not at the measuring of the above horse either year however would it not be pretty easily explainable that said horse was 34.25 one year and the next measured in at 34.00 according to those who are steadfast in the new AMHA rule being necessary?

This is of course not the situation being discussed here at this time however it surely does prove the confusion that can arrive from allowing a horse who measures in over 34.00 inches for whatever reason into a registry that is strictly for 34.00 inch or less horses.

Actually that horse measured over 35 one year, then two years later he is under 34? There was a difference of 1 1/2" not the 1/4 inch you would like to believe. I got it right from the first trainers mouth.

Besides, again, this is not about putting down AMHA or AMHR. It is too bad so many people have to ALWAYS go that route. It is about correcting what is wrong with BOTH AMHA and AMHR!!!!!

Another thing: I just came back from one of our local shows. AMHR one day, AMHA the next. The show secretary was a one man show. She did everything, including the measuring. She had this funky measurer with a circle flat bottom. The AMHR steward was sitting there during the measuring. (I show AMHA only) He watched her measure, chating away, but never corrected her. The ground beneath the measurer was ful of dirt and sand, over cement. When I swept an area for the stick to be placed he commented to me, "what, it is going to change the measurmet by 1/15th of an inch?" The secretary was in a hurry to get back to the office to print out more show sheets for the ongoing AMHR show. I set my 30"mare up and she measured her at 301/4". The circle at the end of the measureer was not flat on the ground, but at an angle. She turned to me and asked if I was showing in the 30 and under clasee, which I said yes to, she without me moving the mare at all, she re-measured he at 31" SAY WHAT? So again, without me moving the mare at all, she re-measured her again and got 30 1/2". At no time was the measuring stick flush to the gournd, nor did she ever look at the level which was in the arm. When horses are measured like this at shows, no wonser we have a problem with measuring.

At dogs shows, we had a measurer that drops down over the dogs shoulders, like a gillotine. Why can we not have a measurer like that where it is harder to make a mistake or cheat!!

 

[wildoak]

Well said, Ed. It's the correct - and simplest - answer to this can of worms.

Jan

 

[Mona]

VERY well said! This is what many have been stressing for a LONG time!! THAT is EXACTLY what needs to be done!

 

[MiLo Minis]

It is not entirely the measurer's fault. Every single person who shows in a class against a horse that they KNOW is OVER, and doesn't protest it, is personally responsible for allowing this cheating to continue. I do feel we need some new rules, at least in the AMHR, to help combat the problem but, until each and every one of you stands up and protests, there will always be bad measuring.

 

[whitney]

Riverdance what is the measuring device used for dogs called?

Question for Mr. Sisk:

What EXACTLY can I DO?

Can a spectator challenge a horses height as long as they have the 100.00? Maybe thats the answer someone NOT showing (no interest in class outcome). Alot of us go to shows to watch can we help the associate stay honest by carrying and extra 100.00 in our pockets? Found answer to my question.

AMHR requires you to be the owner, trainer or agent of a horse in the same class as the protested horse. OH WELL......

AMHA DOES NOT STATE who can protest........................................who wants to volunteer to be an ENFORCER?

On a lighter note a picture popped into my head. Entry gate height at 34". Over the loud speaker "ring stewart needed horse stuck in the IN GATE!"

 

[wpsellwood]

I believe the dog measuring device is called a wicket. (spelling??) Ed made several of these and we tried them out. They seemed to work really well. He made them in every size. The only problem I could see is that it would be spendy for clubs, but maybe we could get them in just at the world show and championship shows??? Possibly Nationals. I dont know a whole lot about it. Maybe Ed could fill us in better. ED???? You out there?

 

[McBunz]

If the wicket worked well why not draw up blue prints and send them out to each club.. There must be someone in each club able to build a set..

These measuring escapades must be stopped right from the local show right up to the nationals..

 

[wpsellwood]

Eds reply ~

Just like all situations, the measuring process is only as good as the person doing it. It is impossible to dictate morality and integrity. When you speak of assessing fines on these measuring officials, It comes to mind that this is not a high paying position to start with. I believe that after the first fine, you wouldnt be able to find anyone to do this thankless job. Yes, there are ones that know how to manipulate the stick and then there are others that have no earthly Idea of what the process entales. They just slap the stick up there and wing it.

Its the same way with the measuring rules. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the rules we have. Its the fact that our officials at the show just choose not to abide by or enforce them. We do not need new rules, we need to enforce the ones we have.

As far as measuring devices go, There are 2 different sticks used between the 2 registries. The AMHA uses the Sligo stick and the AMHR uses a stick that resembles a dry wall square if you are familiar with one of those. Both are very capable devices but are only as good as the person using it. A gentleman from S. Dakota and myself have built a set of wickets that could really help solve the human element in measuring. It is not a new invention by no means, it is what they measure show dogs and some other horse breeds use them also. If you can picture 2 metal uprights 20'' apart with a non adjustable crossbar that straddles the horse and is set at the last hair of the mane. If you have a horse that is in the 32''-34'' class, you use the 34'' wicket. You set the device on the last hair of the mane and if both legs of the wicket do not touch the ground, the horse is too big, take it home. In all cases at shows, We do not need to know exactly what each horse measures. All we need to know is exactly what class does this horse belong in. In the case of the AMHA, You need 8 wickets. 26'' 28'' 29'' 30'' 31'' 32'' 33'' and 34''. In each situation, when the horse is presented for measureing, the official is told what class the horse is entered in. They select the appropriate wicket, set the device down on the horse and if the legs do not touch the ground, the horse is moved up to the next class or in the over 34 situation, it is DQ. There is nothing to tighten, nothing to adjust, which now has eliminated the human element of the process. I have a set of these wickets, and there is no arguing with the results. There still needs to be someone making sure that the horse is set and positioned properly. These wickets can be produced quite reasonably and actually could be used now since they do follow the specifications listed in rule GRO-20 of the AMHA rule book.

We all have to be a part of fixing this situation. There is a lot of tension out there and it is not good for any of us. If you see a horse that is being stretched or manipulated while it is being measured, very politely question the measurer. If there is a horse that you know is over, be courteous and go talk to the trainer or the owner and explain that you will give them the opportunity to correct the situation. If they refuse to do so, then protest the horse. You gave them the benefit to make it right and they chose not to. Be up front, dont hide behind a wall and broad side them, let them know what you are willing to do. Most people are reasonable but there are a few that will fly off the handle and try to intimidate you. Stand fast and hold your ground.I know this is going to sound stupid, But you do have the rule book behind you.Maybe one of these days that will mean something.

Ed Sisk

 

[Riverdance]

Yes it is called a wicket. It is like a guillotine. You stand the animal under it and let it drop to the shoulder. In the dog wickets there is a ruler on the arm that settles into place and tells you the height.

Ed and Jim Barenclaw made up the Wickets for horses and I am all for using them. If you place it over a horses shoulder and it does not touch the ground on both legs, then your horse needs to go up to the next class.

The next problem we have, is how to measure. If you measure at the last mane hair, then people can sew in mane (at least one of the trainers does this). Glue in mane hair, and hairspray to the body coat to feel like mane, etc. Many ways to still cheat. We not only need a new measuring devise, but a proper place on the horses body to measure. The top of the withers does not change, no matter what you do to the horse, but measuring at the top of the withers is going to send many of our horses over the 34" size limit. I have a stallion now, who is 31 1/2" tall at the last mane hair, but is 34" at the withers. AMHA tried to get it past to use the base of the withers. Many people had a fit about that, but at least it is an area on the horse that does not change and can not be moved up or back (thus less cheating). I had no problem finding the end of the withers in all of my horses (I have 38 adults) and in many cases was about were the true end of the mane was.

 

[rabbitsfizz]

OK...I have been on the receiving end of "wickets " in dogs and horses, and I can assure the devise is only as good as the person using it and is not a fail safe.

There is no fail safe.

In one case my Sheltie failed her 15" wicket and I questioned this (politely) with the Judge.

She (also politely) pointed out that I could see the arms did not touch the ground.

And I could, but could not understand why until I saw the Steward had her front paws at least half an inch off the ground!!!

Once this was rectified she went through, no problem.

I did not get an apology!!

The fixed thing for horses??

You think you have problems getting the stick used at present onto a horse, try a fixed one sometime!!

I have had to put a hand over a horse eye (my OWN horse!!) to get them to stand to be measure (I was mortified!) but I really do doubt, on that day, I would have got the "wicket" on them.

Since the rules we have at the moment are not enforced, which is the only problem, why try to introduce new ones??

The problem with the base of the withers is, as I see it...

A) it does not exist as a skeletal point, there is a reason the top was chosen, it is actually there!!

B ) it makes the large horses smaller....so now we have even bigger horses claiming to be under 34"

C) we are a laughing stock as it is, over the measuring, people are not stupid, they know a "con" when they see one!!!

Why not have a clean sweep, make all horses 34" and under at the withers (handling the already registered is simple, handling the yet to be born word have to maybe have a three year phase in...it could be done, though) and just be honest about it??

But I do appreciate that is not the problem we are addressing here......

Enforce the rules that are already in place.

Make people not involved in the measuring GO AWAY...it is not their business!!

Penalise, heavily, anyone who is rude or deemed to be rude, to a measurer (I have measured, here, I had POWER!!!!! I could have barred a horse from the ring if it's owner/ handler had abused me. Even so people can be very rude, without actually threatening, and that is harder to seal with, I appreciate)...but the rules are there, USE THEM.

The real problem as I see it is, that whilst we have a society and a BOD that is willing to blatantly flout it's own rules for whatever reason, we are not going to be able to solve the problmes.

 

[McBunz]

Any person sewing, gluing or spaying hair should be disqualified from ever showing again.. If it happened to one or two it would probably never happen again.

 

[Riverdance]

OK...I have been on the receiving end of "wickets " in dogs and horses, and I can assure the devise is only as good as the person using it and is not a fail safe.There is no fail safe.

In one case my Sheltie failed her 15" wicket and I questioned this (politely) with the Judge.

She (also politely) pointed out that I could see the arms did not touch the ground.

And I could, but could not understand why until I saw the Steward had her front paws at least half an inch off the ground!!!

Once this was rectified she went through, no problem.

I did not get an apology!!

The fixed thing for horses??

You think you have problems getting the stick used at present onto a horse, try a fixed one sometime!!

I have had to put a hand over a horse eye (my OWN horse!!) to get them to stand to be measure (I was mortified!) but I really do doubt, on that day, I would have got the "wicket" on them.

Since the rules we have at the moment are not enforced, which is the only problem, why try to introduce new ones??

The problem with the base of the withers is, as I see it...

A) it does not exist as a skeletal point, there is a reason the top was chosen, it is actually there!!

B ) it makes the large horses smaller....so now we have even bigger horses claiming to be under 34"

C) we are a laughing stock as it is, over the measuring, people are not stupid, they know a "con" when they see one!!!

Why not have a clean sweep, make all horses 34" and under at the withers (handling the already registered is simple, handling the yet to be born word have to maybe have a three year phase in...it could be done, though) and just be honest about it??

But I do appreciate that is not the problem we are addressing here......

Enforce the rules that are already in place.

Make people not involved in the measuring GO AWAY...it is not their business!!

Penalise, heavily, anyone who is rude or deemed to be rude, to a measurer (I have measured, here, I had POWER!!!!! I could have barred a horse from the ring if it's owner/ handler had abused me. Even so people can be very rude, without actually threatening, and that is harder to seal with, I appreciate)...but the rules are there, USE THEM.

The real problem as I see it is, that whilst we have a society and a BOD that is willing to blatantly flout it's own rules for whatever reason, we are not going to be able to solve the problmes.

Unfortunatly there can be up to a 2" difference from the last mane hair and the top of the withers. Do you know how many horses would no longer measure into AMHA if we changed it. It has been talked about, then changing the top height to 36" to comphensate for the change. But then we would get all of the people complaining that AMHA wants to let in taller horses, you just can not win.

Plus the fact that the really tiny mares often have trouble foaling. So we would not have too many mares that can saftly be used for breeding. I for one do not like mares under 31" (though I have a couple). All of my 32 to 34" mares would no longer be considered AMHA horses if we changed to the withers and did not raise the height acceptance.

I think that would cause even bigger problems.

As for raising a horse's front or even back feet so that they do not measure under. That would almost be impossible to do like what happened to your Shelty.

 

[bingo]

[unfortunatly there can be up to a 2" difference from the last mane hair and the top of the withers. Do you know how many horses would no longer measure into AMHA if we changed it. It has been talked about, then changing the top height to 36" to comphensate for the change. But then we would get all of the people complaining that AMHA wants to let in taller horses, you just can not win.

Well that can also be the difference between the last mane hairs and the bottom of the withers on some horses as well. There is no answer to changing measuring that will please everyone however it will always come back to the same issue. Those who are dishonest and push the limit and those who are totally disgusted with the fact they do.