What gives??

[Mominis]

You guys all know I'm new here and new to minis in general, so please understand that I'm not trying in any way to be insulting by this post, I'm trying to learn.

Recently, there was a big to-do about how minis were becoming little moderns and what a problem that is. I just was looking at the recent AMHA World link and I've been reading my Journals as well. Here's my question...so many people make a big thing about how their horses look like mini Arabians. The tack is Arabian show horse-like, the presentation is Arabian-ish and the horses seem to be bred that way. Why is it preferred that a mini look like an Arabian, but it is a no-no if they look "mini moderns" (which, to my uneducated eye, look like little Saddlebreds). Why isn't it okay to breed for a different type, like the Saddlebred or modern Morgan look and have it not be as accepted or encouraged as breeding for an Arabian type?

Again, not trying to start anything here, just trying to understand the market.

 

[targetsmom]

I find this interesting too, because my recent background is with Pintos (a color breed of course) which has 4 conformation TYPES. Well they don't have types yet for minis, but the 4 types for big horses are stock, hunter, saddle, and pleasure. Stock and hunter are BY FAR the more popular types, with the pleasure type - which includes Arabians - much less popular, at least as far as I can tell (local show entries, Horse of the Year results).

I doubt I will live long enough to see it, but I bet some registry (Pinto maybe) will some day include "type" on the papers of minis.

BTW, I think I prefer the hunter (or Warmblood type) of mini myself.

 

[disneyhorse]

I don't know. It's a weird bias. Somewhere lots of people jumped on the "Arabian type" bandwagon, but now that people are jumping on the "Shetland" bandwagon people are freaking out.

Arabians are very beautiful horses, though, so it's easy to see why people would want to try for those traits.

Andrea

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I don't show in AMHA or even a member of it anymore so I can't really say. The arabian look has been in for a while. I'm not too fond with how refined they are, except I do like the dishy head look. AMHA however does give awards too The best all around horse and they have to do well in halter and other performance events to beable to win that award. Also I know there was talks that AMHA was thinking about adding a performance halter division, but not sure how that is going or not.

 

[Minimor]

I think--from what people are saying--the "mini moderns" are unacceptable because the trend in the show ring--particularly in the driving classes--is the "mini moderns" are winning over the other types, be they Arabian, Welsh or QH types. The mini moderns tend to have higher withers and better shoulders and with that--better movement. Because owners of these other types of Mini do not wish to be getting beat by bigger moving horses, they are protesting against that type of horse.

I've been told (haven't seen it for myself because we do not have Modern Shetlands showing in the Mini division in this area) that the Modern Shetland type of Mini doesn't do as well in halter, because Modern Shetlands have heads that are less refined and not so pretty--they are most likely to excel in the park harness class. However, the Classic Shetland type of Mini--which is what some people are wanting to have taken out of the "regular" Mini divisions--does tend to do very well in halter because that type of Mini tends to have longer legs, longer, finer neck and a slimmer body than the average "Arabian type" Mini.

If someone started coming out with Minis that were truly Arabian in type--honestly, while the Mini world uses Mini type halters and brags about the Arabian type of their horses, IMO those horses are much more Welsh pony in type than they are Arabian--if someone did come out with true "Arabian in miniature" horses, there are many who would complain about it being unfair, and they would want to keep those out of the Mini show rings too.

 

[AnnaC]

Many many years ago (back in the dark ages well before most of you were born) there was a programme on tv (and I think it might have been from the USA) about miniature horses. And by golly they were miniature HORSES - there was a mini Clydesdale with its unusual colouring pattern, a mini Shire with all its leg feathers, a mini Percheron a real dapple grey heavyweight, plus a sturdy hunter looking type and one or two others. It amazed all of us watching it, we had never seen horses that were the perfet miniature versions of their counterparts.

Of course time has moved on and so have miniature horses, and we now have some very beautiful little horses throughout the world today. The Arabian type may be popular at the moment, but I see no reason why other types/builds/styles of minis should not get a 'look in' at the shows. Surely a well conformed mini is a well conformed mini no matter whether it is lightweight or of a heavier type?

Here in the UK we are lucky to have classes at the major mini shows (and a lot of the minor shows) divided into Hunter (heavy), Cob, Thoroughbred etc which gives everyone an equal chance - the Champion of the show is then judged from the winners of all these classes, and may well turn out to be the heavyweight - depending upon its conformation and the movement it displays!

I like my minis to have a good deal of 'substance' - particularly my mares - with nice chiselled heads, not too much of a dish as I seriously think that a lot of the 'tooth' trouble that today's minis seem to be suffering from, comes from having a head that is too 'refined/dished'.

Just my opinion folks, so dont jump on me LOL!! I shall be reading the other responses with interest!

Anna

 

[kaykay]

I think a lot of this Arabian type stuff started because we have a high number of trainers that came to miniature showing from showing Arabians. I used to giggle when I first started years back that that everyone you met "used to show Arabians".

Unfortunately to some the word "Shetland" is a negative term and its very hard to get them to see the big picture. It doesnt help that every grad pony is a "Shetland". That about drives me nuts. So many people dont understand that American Shetlands are a breed, so if you have a pony with no papers it is not a "Shetland" its a grade pony.

I strongly agree that a lot of the tooth problems we see are caused in part to trying to breed extreme heads. Goes a long with years ago when everyone started to breed for straight legs and then some got too straight and they forgot to look at hips and then we got the influx of miniatures with locked stifle issues.

 

[stormy]

So I will try to explain from my point of view as a "straight" mini breeder. First of all my background includes arabs, dressage and standardbreds. I have also owned and bred shetlands in the past. The Miniature horse breed was moving towards a "arab type" with the pretty head and long neck, flatter croup but also a good shoulder and a way of movement more like I so love in the dressage arena, long, flowing, with elevation but not the extreme action seen in the modern type shetland (which is more extreme even then the Park division in arabs). The roadster horse was indeed a road horse, like a standardbred in many ways, again long stride, ground covering movement.

This is not about winning in the ring, it is about two registrys that were going in differant directions.

Though I find moderns pretty to watch I do not consider the extreme and hot movement an improvement or better way of going then the dressage type movement that used to be Pleasure, infact I find it insulting when so many scorn the beautiful movement of the minis as if it was inferior and only the extreme action of the Shetland should be considered acceptable. What to me is Park type movement should not be showing against Pleasure type movement. They are not levels of the same thing but differant types of movement just as western, hunt seat, dressage and saddleseat are judged differantly.

My constant question is why should the miniature horse breed consider shetland style movement the standard? Minis have become extremely popular pursueing their own path of development, I do not see the trend towards hotter and higher as a benefit to the breed as a whole.

Why if a miniature shetland is desirable to the shetland breeders does the registry not just add height divisions to the shetland registry to include the smaller shetland and allow both breeds to evolve in there unique way, offering more options to more potential owners....growing the breeds as seperate registries?

Why should we want AMHR to becme AMSR??

 

[Mominis]

While I'll agree that Arabians are beautiful horses, I like the look of a Saddlebred, personally. The biggest drawback with the ASB's, to me anyway, is keeping one up in a tailset all the time and never allowing the horse to be a horse. The minis of that type don't seem to have those drawbacks.

I'd like to see, like Target mentioned, type divisions. I think that may just be the key to keeping the breeders that Andrea mentioned happy and still have something for the people who like the type Stormy does (Warmblood like), etc. etc. happy.

Has it ever been proposed to do a saddle type, a pleasure type, a sport type and a stock type division?

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Like I said in my post eariler there were talks that AMHA was going to add another halter division for more of your stock type horses(aka: performance halter). As far as I know there are no talks in AMHR having added divisions. Like people have said adding more divisions is just going to make our National show longer. So having my idea of a foundation division may not be such a good idea. But I also think something needs to be done, but don't know what. Is having AMHR/ASPC horses taking charge in the AMHR ring going to be the norm I don't know? I don't see them leaving, and I feel like they should have there place.

When I started with the miniatures almost 10 years now the type of horses being shown in AMHA was the norm. They just have got more refined and more extreme heads which is not my taste but the type is still the same. Yes more and more shetlands are going into AMHA but I feel like when they get down that small they more look like miniatures, just maybe with a lil more edge.

For me personally perhaps I should switch over. Show and breed AMHA instead of R which their route is going towards the shetlands. However there are no AMHA shows around here, showing and breeding in AMHA is more expensive and I feel AMHR has more to offer. I have always showed in AMHR and I don't want to leave. But with the way things are going I feel like I hit a barrier and can't go forward.

 

[CharlesFamily]

Good question, and one I have been wondering myself!

Personally, while I find Arabians beautiful to look at, I have never been fond of them. I am a through and through stock horse lover. I have always owned Quarter Horses. I love their look, and especially the old-time QH look, not the new Appendix look. I love big round hips, a huge jaw, huge eye and sturdy legs.

Even when I moved to minis, while I can appreciate the beauty of the delicate looking arab-styled minis, when I go to purchase I always find myself drawn to the stock horse types of good conformation. I still want them to have the nice open shoulder so they can move well because I love performance, but I love the more muscled look.

I wish that minis would get divided up into different categories now, too, since there seem to be more "types" than say 10 years ago which was the last time I showed minis. My girls and I are preparing for our first show with the boys and as I have been teaching them the ins and outs of halter and showmanship, I am not having them "stretch" them in a halter stance as I just don't think it is as becoming to them as they are not the "arab/morgan/ASB" type. It would look as silly as having a QH stand that way.

I can't say if that will hurt us in the show ring, but that is why we are starting in an open show instead of a rated show. We will see!

Barbara

 

[rabbitsfizz]

Well, I came from Arabs and I can tell you I have never, ever seen a Mini (Adult) that looked like a Arab. I have seen horses that had that an Arab look about them, and I certainly breed for it, but most end up looking like tiny little Sec A Welsh.

So, the AmShet, I think , is a very good way to go if you want a refined animal that is horse like.

Once you have everything else right it is not a hard job to get an Araby head, if you so wish.

I am not sure what all the fuss is about, frankly, I would give my right arm for some of those AmShets!!!

 

[Matt73]

So I will try to explain from my point of view as a "straight" mini breeder. First of all my background includes arabs, dressage and standardbreds. I have also owned and bred shetlands in the past. The Miniature horse breed was moving towards a "arab type" with the pretty head and long neck, flatter croup but also a good shoulder and a way of movement more like I so love in the dressage arena, long, flowing, with elevation but not the extreme action seen in the modern type shetland (which is more extreme even then the Park division in arabs). The roadster horse was indeed a road horse, like a standardbred in many ways, again long stride, ground covering movement.

This is not about winning in the ring, it is about two registrys that were going in differant directions.

Though I find moderns pretty to watch I do not consider the extreme and hot movement an improvement or better way of going then the dressage type movement that used to be Pleasure, infact I find it insulting when so many scorn the beautiful movement of the minis as if it was inferior and only the extreme action of the Shetland should be considered acceptable. What to me is Park type movement should not be showing against Pleasure type movement. They are not levels of the same thing but differant types of movement just as western, hunt seat, dressage and saddleseat are judged differantly.

My constant question is why should the miniature horse breed consider shetland style movement the standard? Minis have become extremely popular pursueing their own path of development, I do not see the trend towards hotter and higher as a benefit to the breed as a whole.

Why if a miniature shetland is desirable to the shetland breeders does the registry not just add height divisions to the shetland registry to include the smaller shetland and allow both breeds to evolve in there unique way, offering more options to more potential owners....growing the breeds as seperate registries?

Why should we want AMHR to becme AMSR??

I totally agree

The Modern Shetland, IMHO, is more of a smaller version of a Hackney Pony and, obviously, has a huge amount of blood from that breed (movement, head, etc.). Beautiful animals, but...should be totally separate from a "mini".

 

[Minimor]

I have to say to anyone that believes the Shetland influence adds only up and down movement without extension—if that is what you think, then you are NOT paying a whole lot of attention to the Shetlands and how they move!!

The majority of Shetlands that are in AMHR—and the majority of Classic and Foundation Shetlands that are too tall for AMHR—have more extension than up & down in their movement. Modern Shetlands, yes, you’ll see more up & down there, often because of how they are trained & shod. Pull their shoes & move ‘em out & you’ll see some awesome extension there too, though perhaps with more lift. Truly, horses can have lift as well as extension, and for me that’s not a bad thing. (I had Morgans before and one thing I love about the Morgans is their nice round action).

My ponies—and I currently have 7 of them—all have lovely extension. My oldest gelding would go Modern Pleasure, possibly even Modern, if he were shod up for it. I have him barefoot and yes, he still has some lift, but he also extends beautifully. When I watch him trot at liberty, he looks like a dressage horse—a good one! (And yes, I was into dressage at one time, classical dressage) He lifts up in front, gets his rear end under him, and just flows along, looking very much like a good dressage horse—a slim, small sized warmblood even! Dora, one of my fillies, has a lovely long floating trot—she’d be super as a road horse as she can “float” at very high speed—and I figure she would compete in country pleasure, because she doesn’t have high action. Even without high action she can out move any Mini I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen some good moving Minis. The Shetlands can surely lend some fluidity to the Miniatures' movement.

And Arabian type—my yearling filly Reva (Shetland) looks like an Arabian—if you saw her out in the pasture & didn’t know who she was, I’ll bet that you would take her for an Arabian. So please don’t tell me that Shetlands are ruining the Arabian type of the Miniatures—some of them would actually add to that type!!

And you know what? Yes, it is all about winning and losing. If the Shetlands weren’t winning in the AMHR show ring—if they were LOSING every time out, or even 9 out of 10 times, no one would care. If they were LOSING, the straight AMHR exhibitors would say let people breed them if they want, let people show them, because our straight AMHR horses are beating them all the time anyway, so it doesn’t matter.

As it is, it matters because the Shetlands are WINNING. It is because they are winning that people don’t want them in the registry (or at the very least it is the reason why people want them to be put into their own little division away from the straight AMHR horses)

 

[Matt73]

Modern Shetlands (or any American Shetland, for that matter)competing in the ring against minis is like having Grand Prix trained Dutch Warmbloods, Hanoverians etc. compete against a Quarter Horse in the dressage ring. It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[midnight star stables]

I have to say to anyone that believes the Shetland influence adds only up and down movement without extension—if that is what you think, then you are NOT paying a whole lot of attention to the Shetlands and how they move!!

The majority of Shetlands that are in AMHR—and the majority of Classic and Foundation Shetlands that are too tall for AMHR—have more extension than up & down in their movement. Modern Shetlands, yes, you’ll see more up & down there, often because of how they are trained & shod. Pull their shoes & move ‘em out & you’ll see some awesome extension there too, though perhaps with more lift. Truly, horses can have lift as well as extension, and for me that’s not a bad thing. (I had Morgans before and one thing I love about the Morgans is their nice round action).

My ponies—and I currently have 7 of them—all have lovely extension. My oldest gelding would go Modern Pleasure, possibly even Modern, if he were shod up for it. I have him barefoot and yes, he still has some lift, but he also extends beautifully. When I watch him trot at liberty, he looks like a dressage horse—a good one! (And yes, I was into dressage at one time, classical dressage) He lifts up in front, gets his rear end under him, and just flows along, looking very much like a good dressage horse—a slim, small sized warmblood even! Dora, one of my fillies, has a lovely long floating trot—she’d be super as a road horse as she can “float” at very high speed—and I figure she would compete in country pleasure, because she doesn’t have high action. Even without high action she can out move any Mini I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen some good moving Minis. The Shetlands can surely lend some fluidity to the Miniatures' movement.

And Arabian type—my yearling filly Reva (Shetland) looks like an Arabian—if you saw her out in the pasture & didn’t know who she was, I’ll bet that you would take her for an Arabian. So please don’t tell me that Shetlands are ruining the Arabian type of the Miniatures—some of them would actually add to that type!!

And you know what? Yes, it is all about winning and losing. If the Shetlands weren’t winning in the AMHR show ring—if they were LOSING every time out, or even 9 out of 10 times, no one would care. If they were LOSING, the straight AMHR exhibitors would say let people breed them if they want, let people show them, because our straight AMHR horses are beating them all the time anyway, so it doesn’t matter.

As it is, it matters because the Shetlands are WINNING. It is because they are winning that people don’t want them in the registry (or at the very least it is the reason why people want them to be put into their own little division away from the straight AMHR horses)

I love your posts

And I agree 100% too. To be honest, I can't think of a AMHR mini that has won a National Grand Championship in Halter, from the past few years. Other then Prince, who Stacy mentioned that he does have some Shetland back in his pedigree. I also think JC's Jenga is a neat horse, winning National Grand Championship Over Stallion in AMHR Halter in 1998 and again in 2008. It was also cool to see him in Congress this year, still holding his own (Reserve Champion Senior Stallion I think.

)Is this a bad thing? I'm not sure, depends on where you stand. IMO, there are some STUNNING horses in our AMHR show ring.

And I also agree with the training. Most AMHR/ASPC horses I know are not "modern" and do not show Pleasure or Park. Most are beautiful Country pleasure moving type horses. Now I'm sure if you shod them and put some elastics on their feet, they'll start moving with more lift. Heck, so does a mini.

I'd love to own a true modern mini to cross to my AMHR only horses because of the beautiful trot I'd get - both lift and extension.

On a side note, watching Shetland Congress this week was amazing! And I can say, had they had it online LAST year, I would have now been the proud owner of a stunning pony! Oh well.

 

[Sue_C.]

I totally agree

The Modern Shetland, IMHO, is more of a smaller version of a Hackney Pony and, obviously, has a huge amount of blood from that breed (movement, head, etc.). Beautiful animals, but...should be totally separate from a "mini".

DITTO-DITTO-DITTO!!!!!!!!!!

Modern Shetlands (or any American Shetland, for that matter)competing in the ring against minis is like having Grand Prix trained Dutch Warmbloods, Hanoverians etc. compete against a Quarter Horse in the dressage ring. It doesn't make any sense to me.Minimor

AND AGAIN...DITTO........

The only ones who think this is a good idea...are the ones who HAVE THEM...and say the rest of us are just whining "sour grapes". I say no, that is not it...and no...it is NOT all about WINNING that almighty #@$%^&$# ribbon. It IS all about changing the entire form/type of an animal for a FAD...that too shall pass...but not before it (IMO) harms the breed.

I-just-don't-GET-IT. Whay IS IT, that the park horse lover doesn't STICK to a park horse breed. I love the look too, really...I DO. but if I want a Hackney, I will buy one. If I WANT a modern Shetland, I will BUY one... Instead...I bought miniature horses, and LOVE the long, low sweeping gait that I have personally looked for, and bred for.

And don't go trying to hand me that, "it is how they are shod"...I have friends with registered Hackneys...and barefoot, they move like sewing machines compared to the dressage type movement of my minis.

 

[Leeana]

The nice thing about miniatures right now..if you like the smaller QH type horses, "modern" miniatures, classic shetland type miniatures, arabian type,.....is that you can own, breed and show whatever kind or "type" of horse that you like. But at some point you have to stop and take a look at your program and make changes as you go to stay competitive if showing and breeding show animals is your "cup of tea". I think a lot of people just do not understand the shetland and types....

Own the type of horse you enjoy and own the BEST of that type if you are showing....be happy with that....

I think a lot of people have come to just blaim their loss in the show ring on the fact being that the winning horses/ponies were shetlands.....that is just not true.

I do not think the amhr/aspc or shetland influence is at all a "fad", if so this is a long time fad.......where would the breed be if it could not move forward?? All breeds are moving forward - Could you imagine if the miniatures still looked like they did back in the 60's...70's...80's (and well before that)....do you think when the miniatures started to first become leggy and refined that was considered a "fad"????

I think the breed is beautiful now but there is always room for improvement. I cannot wait to see the breed in 30..40..50 years from now. I only wish I could see it 100 years from now and on..

But what do I know and its only my opinion that I feel strong enough about to share.

 

[gvpalominominis]

I think you hit it right on the head there... I'd like to "cross" this with that to get a better result.

 

[Sue_C.]

:arg!