What is your opinion

[Slagle]

No AMHA was around before the AMHR.

I can go back into history about te AMHR and when it started.

Tracey

 

[~Lisa~]

I think one thing you all have to remember is that AMHA is a breed association. AMHR is a HEIGHT REGISTRY it is not a breed. ATracey

Ummmm LOL I think you need to remember that AMHR closed its books years before AMHA has open books and any type of horse with any type of breeding can now register as AMHA so really what makes it any more a true breed then AMHR?

What makes it a breed association? I can take any of my height registry only horses as you call them and suddenly for a few hundred bucks make them AMHA breed association horses even if they have GASP up close pony blood- in fact many hve been planning just that and have until 2013 to do just that

You are incorrect on your history AMHR/ASPC was first and then some branched off and started AMHA you can love AMHA and no one is saying that is wrong but it is nothing more then a height registy never was just like AMHR

 

[Relic]

l'm just wondering are there as many youth showing the AMHR/ASPC minis as say in the AMHA/AMHR minis in classes like showmenship obstacle jumping driving??

 

[~Lisa~]

Ruffian I think the key here is you can not always tell the difference by looking at them. The Establo horses and other Arenosa's have been doing very well in the show ring for years and yet are a totally different look then some of the other AMHR/ASPC lines you see in the ring

 

[Boinky]

youth could show and handle any one of my apsc/amhr horses. They are no different than any mini i've ever worked or trained. infact most of mine are studs and are more mellow than many "mini's" i've been around. i just don't see that most of them are "hot" like the general consensus. sure just like any horse or breed there are going to be exceptions to the rules but it's more often than not in my experience that they are truly no different. only difference is that the good shetland/mini's (i'm saying good because there are a lot of not nice ones too) have better conformation.

it amazes me the people that talk about straight mini's but have shetland quite close up in the lines...

 

[Slagle]

I have searched more and found that the AMHA was founded in 1978 for promoting the breeding of equine 34" and under. Yes they broke off from the ASPC in the late 70's to start the AMHA.

Then the AMHR-A started in approx. the early 1970 and THEN the AMHR-B started approx. in 1991. YES I was incorrect.

The ASPC is a breed association because they do not take any registrys from other organization. The AMHR is a height registry and yes I was incorrect the AMHA is a height registry until they close it. When it is closed for no more hardshipping then it will be a breed.

My mom was on the ASPC board of directors in the late 80' and early 90's when they started the AMHR-B and then when they closed it to hardships.

I am very sorry but now I have it straight and AMHA did start a few years before the AMHR. I was not aware that you could still register under 34" horse in AMHA (for a fee) but sounds like they may be closing it.

Sounds like to me that anything registered can be in the AMHA/AMHR if meeting the height requirements and paying the fee.

I APPOLOGIZE.

Tracey

 

[Boinky]

I am very sorry but now I have it straight and AMHA did start a few years before the AMHR. I was not aware that you could still register under 34" horse in AMHA (for a fee) but sounds like they may be closing it.

no as i understand it AMHR was formed in 1972 and AMHA is 1978.

 

[Slagle]

I am very sorry but now I have it straight and AMHA did start a few years before the AMHR. I was not aware that you could still register under 34" horse in AMHA (for a fee) but sounds like they may be closing it.

no as i understand it AMHR was formed in 1972 and AMHA is 1978.

Yes you are correct I turned them around in that sentence. SORRY.

 

[ruffian]

Ruffian I think the key here is you can not always tell the difference by looking at them. The Establo horses and other Arenosa's have been doing very well in the show ring for years and yet are a totally different look then some of the other AMHR/ASPC lines you see in the ring

I just agreed with others. I like the 34" and under better, but have both.

 

[Boinky]

I am very sorry but now I have it straight and AMHA did start a few years before the AMHR. I was not aware that you could still register under 34" horse in AMHA (for a fee) but sounds like they may be closing it.

no as i understand it AMHR was formed in 1972 and AMHA is 1978.

Yes you are correct I turned them around in that sentence. SORRY.

yeah sorry i figured that out after i posted that..lol

 

[Minimor]

The Shetlands look like ponies, not big horses. I have had people see photos of my horses and were surprised to find out they where Mini's not full size horses, but one does not mistake a Shetland for a large horse.

Seriously? Have you actually LOOKED at some of the Shetlands, or at least photos of them in the magazine? There are a good many of them that could be taken for Morgans or Saddlebreds (provided that the picture doesn’t include a cart/driver/handler to give away the small size of the pony) Today’s Shetlands—or many of them, not saying all of them—are much more horse like than a many of the Minis.

The Minis at the AMHA World show already have long legs, are upheaded and refined. They already look like large horses in Miniature without continuing to add more pony bloodlines.

That's been said at least twice on this thread, and I'm not sure if the ones who said it meant to sound as snooty and superior as they came across when they pointed out that the AMHA horses have long legs and are upheaded and refined, but that IS how you came across. I have to say that I think that if more of the triple registered Shetlands start showing AMHA you will see a definite difference between those "ponies" and the straight AMHA or even AMHA/AMHR horses. No one said the AMHR horses don’t have long necks, long legs and refinement. Many of them do! But, many of the ASPC/AMHR horses are just that bit more….”extreme”…might be the word I should use.

However, it’s not impossible for an AMHR horse to compete successfully with the ASPC/AMHR horses. At our show here this year in one division there was an ASPC/AMHR horse competing against an AMHR horse—and the AMHR horse won every time out, under all 3 judges. The ASPC/AMHR horse was not a poor quality animal, but the AMHR horse was a very nice example of the breed and the judges preferred him. So yes, I think “full Miniatures” can be competitive against the Shetlands, but breeders have to really look at their breeding programs & be aware of where they are going with their horses.

For myself I prefer to keep my Shetlands and Minis separate. The Shetlands I like the best are those that are a bit too tall to be registered as Minis. I haven’t found the same look in most of the smaller ASPC/AMHR ponies. I do have one AMHR mare that I wish did have her Shetland papers—because I think she would show better as a Shetland than as a Mini…not that I need another Shetland mare to show!—but to show her Mini I would pick my judges very carefully. I don’t believe that a lot of them would like her as a Mini. Same with one yearling colt we’ve got—if I brought him out & showed him to you here in the yard most would take him to be a Shetland, not a ‘full Mini’.

And I don't honestly see a lot of difference in temperament/handling difficulty between my shetlands and Miniatures. My Shetlands all have a Modern sire line and they are fairly hot, but that doesn't make them hard to handle. In some respects I actually find them more agreeable than a lot of Minis--they are eager to please. They are also very, very smart, and I think that could be a problem for a lot of people..I'm quite sure that they are smarter than a lot of people. But, my Minis are hot too--I like them that way, and the hot ones are the ones I go for.

 

[~Lisa~]

For me the frustration is not about AMHA or AMHR both have their places- both have good and bad for me it is about the AMHR horse always being deemed as less then.

First it was by AMHA those AMHR horses are worthless, not true minis not good enough it took years but finally that sterotype was broke by many-

then just as quickly it became oh no a AMHR horse is not good you need to have a ASPC/AMHR horse to win or be a good breeder.

It frustrates the heck out of me especially when it is coming from our own registry. We (as in minis) are the $$ in the AMHR/ASPC and yet still our horses are not good enough on there own .

I love the ponies I have a pony and would love to add more for me it is not about the ponies I have small minis it is not about AMHA vs AMHR I just want those quality AMHR only minis to one day finally get the glory they are due. THey should not have to continue to play second fiddle to anyone anymore and like I said it just frustrates me and perhaps gets me a bit to fired up.

Minimor I agree I prefer my shetlands taller just what I like my own preference

 

[disneyhorse]

To answer your question, as you originally asked it...

If you don't care about the papers, BUY THE NICEST STALLION YOU CAN REGARDLESS OF PAPERS... buy a stallion that fits what you are going to breed for in your program.

This has been argued a lot... as long as the SMALL EQUINE measures in, it can show as a miniature. Regardless of its papers.

The ASPC has gotten a bit more "lax" about this... they used to have "A" and "B" on the papers referring to not height, but breeding. If they had outcrosses to Welsh or Hackney, they got a "B" on the papers. This "B" prevented you from showing Classic if it was a "B"... even if it was Classic type. Now, you can show your pony either Modern or Classic based more on its physical type versus its breeding. So yes, while the ASPC does divide its horses for type... it is not very strict on the papers.

Now, the miniature horses DO NOT HAVE A TYPE. What IS "refined" and "upheaded"?? Riverdance suggested that the AMHA miniatures were more refined and upheaded. Well, those are qualities that I see the ASPC blood bringing in... people complain that they are TOO refined and TOO upheaded. So you see how subjective this whole category is.

Now, the ASPC does have very different "types" of ponies... some of them are very stocky like the old-style mini, some are refined and beautiful like the modern mini, and some have more hackney type motion than the mini currently has (but some breeders are striving for.)

There are SO many different "types" of mini right now, so that is why its important to BUY AND BREED WHAT YOU LIKE. At this point we don't know where the miniature breed will go.

Hate to say it, but there is an INCREASING amount of AMHA/AMHR/ASPC registered horses out there. So then what??? It's going to creep into the AMHA, too. Even though the AMHA is even more anti-pony than the AMHR is.

So.... if you LIKE the look of the ASPC/AMHR animals, go for it. I found myself liking them, bought a few of them, and then liked the ASPC moderns even MORE so that is where I went. I buy and breed what I like. No one has to tell me one thing or the other.

Andrea

 

[~Lisa~]

Disney.... just have to say I am not anti pony I can not say it enough. I do not mind competing against ponies I have seen more often then not the best horse wins and it is not wearing a ASPC/AMHR stamp on its shoulder lol

It is simply the general assumption that AMHR on it's own is not good enough. It is something I know as a breeder (who doesnt breed all that much anymore) I have been fighting for years it is a uphill battle I expected to fight it with AMHA but the last place I expected to have to fight it was within my/ their registry LOL

I would not ever pit myself against any portion of my registry be it AMHR, ASPC, ASPR - NSPR I think all have a place and all are proving to be successful. I support all of them and always will. They are all part of "MY" registry. I have like I said NO PROBLEM showing against ASPC/R horses never have... I just do not like feeling like I have to defend my AMHR only minis as being something other then throw away animals or being less then...

 

[Sandee]

Original question - is it fair to show ASPC against AMHR --as it is so often "depends on which side of the coin you're on". If you have a smaller ASPC that can go under the 38" measurement, then I'd say you'd think it fair because with the longer legs and more movement they do have an advantage in the performance classes.

At the moment, I only have 34" and under so I have no problem with the B size having to show against ASPC double registered.

However, if I decide to show in the B size horses I would look for a double registered one for 2 reasons. First I DO want the advantage of the shetland blood and the long legs and higher action and I am willing to "put up with" SOME higher maintanence (temperment). Second I see an advantage to being able to "swing" both ways for showing as I have grandchildren that are growing and will soon be too big to ride the minis so I'll need the bigger sizes. An addtional advantage that just occured to me is if you are looking for a bigger "B" horse and get a foal, if it should go over 38" you'd still have a place to show it.

 

[disneyhorse]

I am definitely NOT against AMHR-only horses! There are some VERY VERY nice ones out there. An AMHR-only gelding that I used to have, he was Buckeroo bred and NOT ASPC bred terribly close was the 2008 AMHR National Grand Champion Pleasure Driving horse in a class full of ASPC registered minis. Obviously a nice horse is a nice horse.

The ASPC bred minis CAN have a lot of good qualities... but the papers DO NOT make the horse. I have seen some terrible, terribly ASPC/AMHR horses out there that are conformationally wrong and can't trot worth a darn.

The papers DO NOT make the horse!!!

Andrea

 

[Boinky]

i don't think anyone (or that i know of) is really against R only horses. The ultimate goal is to breed nice R horses that have conformation and movement using the shetland lines to try to enhance that. i'm assuming someday AMHR will not allow ASPC hardshipping... so the goal of allowing them is to allow "new blood that can influence our "breed"". perhaps i'm wrong but that's how I look at it. i've selected horses in which i personally like, move well and have nice conformation that i personally find very hard to find in a strict mini regiment. from these i can breed what i want. i have AMHR only horses that i cross on my shetlands (which makes them R only of course). the goal in the end is to try to produce the nicest horse from the nicest cross i can have period. if that means crossing on "acceptable" outcrosses so be it....nothing wrong with or unfair about shetlands (be it for breeding or showing).

 

[JMS Miniatures]

I have mentioned it before and it has been brought up but I'll say it again. The new people who are coming in see that these AMHR/ASPC ponies are coming in and kicking butt, they are saying to themselves "Oh I need to go out and buy me an AMHR/ASPC pony". Well that won't mean anything if you don't get one that is conformationally correct and can show. Papers don't mean anything if you don't have the horse. Same thing goes with certain bloodlines. They see a certain bloodline winning and they think they have to have it to be competitve. Sorry but thats totally not true. You just have to find the right horse no matter what its papers are or what its bloodline is. These guys aren't like the big horses when it comes to bloodlines. We must educated the new members that are coming in. That an AMHR only horse is just as good as an AMHR/ASPC horse. I had responded to another post about how much envolved these minis have become in just 6 years, they changed from a stocky look to this ultra refined arabian look, but the miniature horses have also done the same thing.

As for AMHA becoming a breed they need to look at a few things before they do. Like look at their horses that are now lost and forgotten because they have gone over.

 

[JWC sr.]

Several things come to mind every time this subject comes up. let me see if I can go thru them without getting flamed too bad. LOL

1. AMHR is the oldest of the two registries. But that does not make AMHA any less legitimate.

2. AMHR & AMHA are height registries only. which is okay are far as I am concerned!

3. Every bloodline out there in the miniature industry that has been successful can be traced back to stallions such as "Buckeroo", "Rowdy" and "Egyptian King", "Gold Melody Boy" etc., which are all out of original Shetland breeding.

4. I am not sure what a "true" or "Pure" miniature is when in fact the above is all true.

Miniature Shetlands, AMHR Miniatures and AMHA miniatures of many bloodlines can and do win in the show ring on a fairly consistent basis when shown against each other. I will put Ms Kentucky in her prime against any Shetland or B Miniature in the country and have a reasonable chance to win in my opinion.

A great horse is a great horse and we should all be breeding towards whatever "perfect" horse we have in our minds eye. Then if that does not conform to what the judges are looking for in a particular area or registry, we will have to make the decision to either change our breeding program or accept the fact that "our" type horse is not going to win in the show ring. Which is okay, but none of us including myself can afford the luxury of not understanding the breeds in question are always changing, hopefully for the better and if we stand still the industry will pass us by. Something Cindy and I will attempt to prevent for Cherryville Farms to the best of our ability.

Currently we own all three type horses that have been mentioned (classic Shetlands, AMHR miniatures and AMHA miniatures, personally we do not care for the hot moderns, but they are fun to watch to us) and sometimes all three are rolled into one horse. We have not noticed any difference in temperament of the three as long as they have been raised here. A few that were raised by someone else do display differences, so I can state from experience that with proper training all of them are sweet and as loving as the next one is.

As far as which registry is better, give it a break!!! We dearly love all of our friends in both registries and it would be a lessor place if both did not exist. I only hope and pray they both are successful and in existence for my grandkids to enjoy when I am dead and gone. There is a lot of neat history about both of them, that is worth paying attention to.

Also if someone will please tell me where to buy all these cheap "QUALITY" AMHR/Shetlands cause I can't find them on a regular basis. Yes prices may be down some, but the top 10% of the horses out there in the market place are still bringing good money. I bought a weanling filly just this last weekend and paid more for her than I have for over half of the other horses here at the farm. But she is exactly what Cindy and I have been looking for and worth what I paid for her to show next year and then move into the breeding pen in a couple of years in our opinion. Before you ask she is a Miniature Shetland (Mom is A and Dad is a B sized horse), registered in ASPC and AMHR at this time. Maybe someday she will be AMHA also if we are lucky.

Anyway that is the way we see it here. We keep and breed the horses we like the look of, constantly evaluating them and seeking to improve our herd with additions and subtraction as we see fit. Always trying to produce the best horse we can that is functional and capable of doing well in the halter or performance area.

With all that said, the answer in my opinion to the qriginal question ask is as long as a horse meets all requirements to be in a particular registry then Yes it is fair to have to show against them at our AMHR/ASPC/AMHA shows.

 

[Firefall]

"With all that said, the answer in my opinion to the qriginal question ask is as long as a horse meets all requirements to be in a particular registry then Yes it is fair to have to show against them at our AMHR/ASPC/AMHA shows. "

I agree, if they meet the requirments then its fair. But I'm partial.

All my foals are very friendly, follow me around and act just like a non-shetland mini does.