Where Did We, as Breeders, Go Wrong? Or, Did We?

[R3]

I have heard several people say that the rule change to measure at the 'base of the withers' was needed so we could have better/more driving horses. Since when did the objective of AMHA breeders change? When did we go from trying to raise smaller perfect horses to trying to raise driving horses? Do we need another rule change to change our Standard of Perfection?

Both the AMHA and AMHR rule books state:

THE AMERICAN MINIATURE HORSE

STANDARD OF PERFECTION

GENERAL IMPRESSION: ... Since the breed objective is the smallest possible perfect horse, preference in judging shall be given the smaller horse, other characteristics being approximately equal.

AMERICAN MINIATURE HORSE REGISTRY

Part 10 – Standard of Perfection

B. Size: ... Since the breed objective is the smallest possible perfect horse preference in judging shall be given to the smallest, all other factors being equal.

If some people are to be believed, AMHA breeders have not able to move closer to their goals. AMHA is 30 years old, and apparently, in 30 years we have not managed to achieve any progress in reaching our objectives. In fact, by the most recent vote, to measure at the base of the withers, we have admitted that we can not breed enough good horses that meet the standard, that was set when the Association incorporated, that we now need to admit taller horses into AMHA.

Personally, I don't believe the above paragraph is true. I believe that AMHA has made great progress in perfecting the small horse in the last 30 years. The tiniest show horses in our breed have increased in quality in a tremedous way. I do not think we need to admit taller horses into the registry. If anything, after all the progress that has been made, this is a wonderful time to step forward as an organization and measure our horses like horses. It would be the next logical step in proving we are meeting our objective of producing smaller, perfect horses.

I guess I wouldn't have so much of a problem with changing the direction of AMHA toward the taller horses if it had been done up front, instead of trying to get taller horses into AMHA by amending the By-Law that changes where we measure. It would have been better to propose a By-Law that changes the maximum height of our horses. Being open about the true motiviation for a By-Law change is better than trying to achieve a goal by disguising it.

I believe that the change is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to try to use 'accuracy' in measuring as a justification for changing where we measure so that taller horses become legitimate in AMHA. If people want taller horses in AMHA just stand up and say so, and see how the Membership votes. That kind of a proposal would have generated discussion and maybe the general membership wouldn't be feeling like they have been blindsided by the repercussions of this 'measuring' charade.

 

[Genie]

I agree

 

[Laura]

[SIZE=12pt]Amen Sister![/SIZE]

 

[Songcatcher]

Well said.

I will continue with my goal of producing the "smallest possible perfect horse" regardless of what the Association does.

 

[Dona]

[SIZE=24pt]I also agree with you, 100%![/SIZE]

 

[McBunz]

Right .. and a standard is a standard.. If they want larger horses in AMHA.. Propose a size change in driving horses only.. go to 38 if they want.. different classes for different sizes. But the smallest perfect horse should still win over all..

 

[minie812]

I agree with you on this. I have both taller and shorter AMHA minis and am striving for that smallest perfect mini in my breeding program (as defined by AMHA)

I think...mmmm by their standard in the rule book OH! Yeah, that's it... what they said

Yep, I am not confused :arg! Yes...Yes...I THINK I know what they mean

Oh well, I will just

 

[bingo]

AMHA will never be the same. I am not sure the repercussions were thought thru when this rule was passed. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the breed will know that AMHA can no longer claim to be the only true miniature horse Registry. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the breed will of course see that now many Over horses will be legally AMHA registered. All of the promotion will need to change if they choose to try to come out of this with any integrity. For me that is the biggest issue the integrity of the entire registry and of course us as breeders.

Now there will be no way to deny that Miniature Horses are not a true breed distinct and different from the far away cousins the Shetland Pony.

With this new rule AMHA has just brought itself closer and taken away the idea that somehow they are the elite the one and only true Miniature Horse registry.

 

[Windhaven]

I agree 100%

Miniatures are horses. There is no reason why they shouldn't be measured like all their other cousins. The associations need to either change their height limit or grandfather in OV sized horses or bring back the OV sized breeding stock rule and start measuring minis like they are a horse, from the top of the wither.

I feel if and when they did start to measure horses at the top of the wither then a lot of the measuring problems would disappear. The members just need to decide on what is the best way to deal with the horses that are already over sized.

My personally opinion would be to raise the limit to 35-36" for AMHA and maybe make a rule that only horses that measure 34" under (because that was the original way the AMHA was set up) can only become Champion of Champions at the World show (just thinking out loud here). That way you will still get people to try and breed the best smallest horse possible. There also are some very good horses that are in the 34-36" range and produce small.

We need all our members to put some ideas out there and see which idea/s get the majority vote and then we need to start the proper procedure to hopefully getting the rules changed.

 

[Tango]

Excellent post R3. You took the words right out of my mouth.

The "current" or original breed standard for AMHA is/was the "smallest perfect horse". Well apparently that is not the case anymore. It now appears, or has been this way for awhile "the tallest perfect horse". If AMHA no longer wants to breed for the "smallest perfect horse", then, by all means, change the breed standard! Quit inventing underhanded ways to sneak even taller horses into the ring! How far will it go? After so many years when even those horses measured at the base of the wither can no longer squeak in, will the measuring go to the middle of the back?

I wonder if the Judges that are used to judge our horses are even aware of the AMHA breed standard, "the smallest perfect horse"? The next time anyone who shows puts their horse in the ring, ask yourself that question - do the judges know what the breed standard is? Or, have they been told something else?

Nikki Faubus

 

[Margot]

If the judges actually gave the preference to the smaller horses all things being equal than there would be no changes made. Anyone who goes to AMHA or AMHR shows knows that it is almost always the larger horses that win, is this because there are no nice smaller horses, I don't think so, but it is easier to get the horsey look in a little larger size and I think even when there is an equally nice smaller horse the judges still tend to pick the bigger ones, JMHO. I think both associations are show driven and what wins at the shows is going to drive the direction of the breed,

 

[RockRiverTiff]

While I think the new measuring method is a mistake, I also feel it was made with good intentions. We have long been discussing the need for change--I'm glad that the need was confronted at the latest convention. A few members on here took the time and trouble to measure their horses and found that the difference was not significant, so while I don't think it's a step forward, I also don't think it's the major step backward everyone has made it out to be. Furthermore, I think anything that gets a somewhat apathetic membership's attention is a good thing. Hopefully in the long run this will result in a more active membership, a more accurate method in the future, and much-needed amendments to how we make changes. If you don't like it--you CAN change it. How many people that have complained about the changes have written their directors or even started drafting their own proposals?

I don't at all believe that this will hurt the registry's credibility, either. I suppose at this point I view it as a compromise (again, neither a step forward nor back) when considering the closing of the registry. And yes yes, I know some of you disagree with that also, but I think it is much needed, and hope in the future it will result in a true standard--one that further addresses these height issues.

Now personally, we have never bred for borderline 34" horses, so the extra 1/2" of leeway is not going to change our breeding program. Furthermore, I don't think the people that have been keeping papers on their oversize horses are really that concerned with legitimacy, or they wouldn't continue to breed those horses in the back pasture. Take a look at some of the sites where every mare is a magical 34"--the people that will take advantage of this are the same ones that have always taken advantage of the honor system we run on, and they didn't need this rule change to do it. Likewise, it doesn't prevent honest breeders from continuing to breed honestly.

 

[McBunz]

Seems to me the only rule change that is needed is to suspend cheaters from showing and reg. for a minimum of five yrs..and start following the standard. But Measuring at the withers only makes sense..

 

[RockRiverTiff]

Seems to me the only rule change that is needed is to suspend cheaters from showing and reg. for a minimum of five yrs..and start following the standard.

I wouldn't say it's the only rule change needed, but it sure is a big one. I remember when they printed suspensions in the World... Did they stop that practice, or did they stop suspending dishonest people?

 

[wwminis]

[SIZE=18pt]I, Too Agree 100% with you![/SIZE]

Bill

 

[MiniThymeAcres]

I totally agree with you.

I've noticed a lot around here, at the R shows, that the larger horse will always win.

And then sometimes I will wonder if the objective has changed some what too.

Because most of the "B" minis around here are AMHR/ASPC.

And I've noticed less and less "A"'s each year.

 

[MeadowRidge Farm]

Very well said!

 

[Dona]

Seems to me the only rule change that is needed is to suspend cheaters from showing and reg. for a minimum of five yrs..and start following the standard.

I wouldn't say it's the only rule change needed, but it sure is a big one. I remember when they printed suspensions in the World... Did they stop that practice, or did they stop suspending dishonest people?

Yes....unfortunately they stopped that practice. OH! I was told it was due to fear of the organization being sued. Don't know if that is true or not....but I really think the organization SHOULD have the right to suspend... or even boot offenders out for life, if the offense calls for it!

 

[Sue_C.]

I think that the problem arises from the wish of many of us miniature owners and breeders, to raise the smallest...USABLE horse. To have a 24 inch horse that looks great...is nice...but there is that question that we used to get asked all the time...before people saw what our horses were actually capable of.

"But what CAN you DO with them"?

In this day and age, it is the very few, who can afford to pay out a large sum of money for an animal that just looks cute. No matter how beautiful, a tiny mini always comes down to "cute", to most people. Almost every person that I have sold a miniature horse to, has come from the large horse world, and has no wish to own a horse they can simply look at. If they cannot ride them...they want to drive them.

This isn't a blast on the "A" horses at all, as all of mine but one have been, and still are..."A's".

 

[midnight star stables]

ALL my horses ARE borderline 34" horses.

I support the miniatures being measured at the TOP of the withers.

As an owner, exhibitor, soon to be breeder and someone who has invested my share of money in my horses, I would not have a problem giving up my horses' AMHA papers. Do I personally loose? YES! But, To better our breed, I feel it is my responsibility.

I would like to see some type of 34+ - 36" breeding stock type papers, but???

Am I looking at this wrong? A 34" horse shouldn't really be 35.75"

To each their own.