Where is AMHR going 10 years from now?

[JMS Miniatures]

Stacy you have some beautiful horses and I value your opinion and I do hope you are right. I do like the look of the shetlands, paticulary there movement, I also think they have helped the breed in ways we don't understand. I think breeders out there with AMHA/AMHR or just AMHR stock have tried to improve there stock to be competitve with the shetlands. However those of us who breed and show AMHR only just doesn't want to be pushed out of the registry. Like it has been said before we don't want to see Nationals be changed into a mini congress. Thats why I would like to know what route AMHR is looking to take in the next 10 years, are they wanting to go more towards the ponies or what?

People have also mentioned we want them to be refiner. How much more refinement can you get. You may want the refinement for your halter horses but I don't think many of them can be competitive in performance. Especially in the under divison. Thats why I think we will see a division between halter and driving. Maybe not but obviously juges like the refiner horses.

I am also one that strongly believes in form to function. I do hope that we can breed horses that can do both halter and driving, but your not going to get that if we continue to breed for refiner horses.

Look this whole mini vs. shetland, shetland is a ugly word nonsense needs to stop. The shetlands were the first and they need to stay. They are the foundation of our registry. This will only stop if AMHR decides to make a actual standard of perfection, what are they looking for in a miniature. Are they wanting a shetland type in a smaller package? No they are just looking for a good horse, any good looking horse. I just feel like the shetlands have there place and the miniatures has there place as well. The way its trending right now is it looks like AMHR is wanting to combine both. If thats the case fine, people will change there breeding programs, they will either stick with AMHR and combine shetland blood into the mix, or people will change to A for there unders. Hopefully the B size miniature will still be in the running but for how long.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

If shetlands have evolved this far since 1888, from those traditional shaggy Thewellian type to what is now called "The American Shetland Pony", can you imagine miniature horses in 100 years?

Great strides have taken place in a much shorter time frame. But are people scared that they will evolved into nothing more than a greyhound with a mane and tail? I seriously doubt it. But maybe the association can divide the miniature horse into different divisions such as a foundation mini, a classic mini and a "modern day" mini. And then perhaps all will be happy.

It is the "American Miniature Horse" isn't it? Well Americans are made up of many different ethnic groups, much like our little equines. Something to think about.

I have mentioned it on here several times where I would love to see a foundation miniature classes being set up. The shetlands can do it why can't we. Instead talks are wanting to set up a modern type division for the modern ponies that come and show in R. Why do we need a sepearte division for the modern ponies that come and show in R where the majority have stopped showing there miniatures because they don't want to compete with the ponies. That is where your foundation classes come in.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

I have mentioned it on here several times where I would love to see a foundation miniature classes being set up. The shetlands can do it why can't we. Instead talks are wanting to set up a modern type division for the modern ponies that come and show in R. Why do we need a sepearte division for the modern ponies that come and show in R where the majority have stopped showing there miniatures because they don't want to compete with the ponies. That is where your foundation classes come in.

What would you consider to be a foundation mini? One with refinement, but still with some bone and substance? What I picture may be different than what you may picture, so could you give a definition that one might could see in a rulebook. Would it read no ASPC crosses allowed?

Also what would stop the finer minis from entering the division? I know shetlands have ponies that should be classic in foundation and sometimes modern pleasure in classic. Could you see that this might be a problem?

Off topic, but questions for a good conversation. A healthy conversation I'd say.

 

[horsefeather]

Jamie,

I tend to agree with you. I remember years ago when we first got into the miniatures, some VERY WELL known breeders, trainers and judges would turn gastly white if you even mentioned the word 'shetland' might be somewhere on your horse's papers.

I could very well name some, but of course I won't. I remember the hulla ballu about minis and shetlands and these same people would be SO proud 'their' minis had no shetland blood in them. Now, again, those same people are proudly saying most of those famous horses in so many backgrounds were really shetlands! :arg! I don't know the exact moment it changed, but change it did. I personally am sick and tired of this whole tirad and I very seldom post on here. But, sometimes I guess I read stuff and have just had it up to here.

It's been going on for years. I really like SOME of the shetland blood that was introduced into the minis, because I prefer the 'B' size horses. What I don't like is several years ago you could take a nice looking mini and show him/her at halter, then turn around and show the same horse in all the working classes. I had one of those. In fact, we had several. They could do it all. Now, they couldn't. Very, very seldom do you see shetlands in an obstacle class. I don't hate shetlands, we have several ourselves and I have said over and over that there are 'some' shetlands that are great. We don't show halter anymore because truthfully we can't afford to purchase horses that show only halter. Then turn around and find others that will do well in performance but not halter. I firmly believe shetlands have their own place. I do know for a fact that in several years we will have more hackney blood in our minis. Will really hate to see that.

OK, off my soapbax. Will go out in the heat and work off my frustration.

Pam

 

[JMS Miniatures]

What would you consider to be a foundation mini? One with refinement, but still with some bone and substance? What I picture may be different than what you may picture, so could you give a definition that one might could see in a rulebook. Would it read no ASPC crosses allowed?

Also what would stop the finer minis from entering the division? I know shetlands have ponies that should be classic in foundation and sometimes modern pleasure in classic. Could you see that this might be a problem?

Off topic, but questions for a good conversation. A healthy conversation I'd say.

I think you would have to take the rules that the foundation shetlands put into place if we ever decide to set up a division for the miniatures. We would have to go back into the lines of the minis to a certain point and make sure they don't have any shetland papered horses in there pedigree. Like the foundation shetland look back and make sure there are no B papered horse in there pedigree. Foundations are more heavier boned and substance. Again we can put this into step with the miniatures. I guess more so these foundation minis appear to beable to do something, to perform. But these horses must have good conformation and must fit within the standard.

Like everything you can't stop horses or ponies for going into there division for which they should not be in. I have seen recently a certain foundation pony that has clearly won everything that IMO isn't the foundation type, which sucks. Its just educating these judges and put a stop to it. If a horse goes into a foundation class they cannot cross enter the other open classes. I would only start in halter first, then maybe in driving. But we shouldn't have to add so many classes for foundation. Its just an idea of mine, I'm defintelly open to anyone who would like to help. I have gotten alot more negatives saying we would just be going backwards, I just don't see that happening, instead I think we may bring more people back.

Pam like you I like the all-around horse. I prefer to go out and have fun and beable to show in everything.

 

[MindyLee]

I'm not here to bash shetlends cause they are very nice BUT if judges are becoming sheltlend owners or trainers anymore...

EXAMPLE: (like it or not this dose happen)

*** If someone takes a 29" mini in a color class and someone else a 34" taller mini or shetlend cross is in there as well: both are silver dappled and you can clearly see that the 29" is nicer built, and stands still, and better groomed... The bigger mini places over the smaller one better or the smaller one not at all because bigger is the new trend and that's it. ***

NOW how is the smaller mini going to compeate at all no matter what class it is in cause the bigger mini is now what's in style? No matter if it is 32" and under class and the 32" mini or shetlend wins.

Folks say on here well AMHA... BUT AMHA is not in every state for shows to compeate in, and a lot of folks dont reg with "A" cause of high $ costs so that is why they stick with "R". And I also know that it's what the judge likes that day as well. BUT smaller minis just can't win and it makes owners feel like its a waste of time and $$$ to show in AMHR if they already see the patteren yr after yr.

I think the same for smaller mini breeders as well.

In my opinion only: BACK TO THE TITLE OF THIS TOPIC... I think the smallers minis are going to be placed on the back burner and cast aside with the future of AMHR.

 

[JWC sr.]

You know this year for the first time in a long time there will be a web cast of Congress shown on line for all to watch, free of charge to everyone. It starts next Sunday by the way!

I strongly suggest that untill you have actually seen the movement in them that you reserve your opinion about shetlands not being able to do obstacles, driving and other performance classes.

Last year we attended our first Congress aa long time breeders of mini's. We were really not aware of what the shetlands were really about until a good friend talked us into going. We also really had no desire to own a shetland, even though I knew that (having done quite a bit of research on bloodlines) that the vast majority of the major ie:winning bloodlines in our miniatures originally came from Select Shetlands and other breeds many years ago.

I personally was amazed at the ability and conformation of these aniamls. Since that time I have bought a number of them and introduced some into our breeding program. But I also bought with the intention of keeping them pure a few foundation shetlands also.

With all that said, I too remember when it was a dirty word for somene to call your mini a pony, not sure why. But I think it more than likely had to do with marketing and also the fact that the little grumpy, short, stocky shetlands of yesteryear had earned a very bad reputation to say the least.

But to return to the question of this thread, with all the above said I still believe lke sme of the others posting here that AMHR is doing just fine. Do we have some problems, sure we do. But we have a strong base, a lot of folks have a vision for tomorrow and I see nothing but a very bright future for AMHR/ASPC/ASPR as a whole with no one registry being more important than the other.

 

[txminipinto]

Congress starts Monday

I strongly urge everyone to watch!

 

[JWC sr.]

Thanks Carin, I helped pay for it and didn't even know when it started. LOL Thats what I have friends for, to keep me out of trouble.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

I think you would have to take the rules that the foundation shetlands put into place if we ever decide to set up a division for the miniatures. We would have to go back into the lines of the minis to a certain point and make sure they don't have any shetland papered horses in there pedigree. Like the foundation shetland look back and make sure there are no B papered horse in there pedigree. Foundations are more heavier boned and substance. Again we can put this into step with the miniatures. I guess more so these foundation minis appear to beable to do something, to perform. But these horses must have good conformation and must fit within the standard.

Like everything you can't stop horses or ponies for going into there division for which they should not be in. I have seen recently a certain foundation pony that has clearly won everything that IMO isn't the foundation type, which sucks. Its just educating these judges and put a stop to it. If a horse goes into a foundation class they cannot cross enter the other open classes. I would only start in halter first, then maybe in driving. But we shouldn't have to add so many classes for foundation. Its just an idea of mine, I'm defintelly open to anyone who would like to help. I have gotten alot more negatives saying we would just be going backwards, I just don't see that happening, instead I think we may bring more people back.

Pam like you I like the all-around horse. I prefer to go out and have fun and beable to show in everything.

Thanks John, very well put.

 

[Marsha Cassada]

My new driving horse is registered both A and R. But he is a 3 year old and now measures 35 1/4" on hoof trim day. No A shows for him! I have always heard how much fun the R shows are. I am hoping to go to some shows next year, if my horse is ready.

I do not breed, so won't be worrying about which horse to cross with what horse. I just hope there will be a place for horses such as mine that grew over the A limit. His parents are both small, he just got dealt a different hand from the gene pool. (I actually perfer the taller horse for driving and am not sorry he outgrew A.) Thank goodness he has papers for both registries so I have an option with him.

There may be lots of horse owners like myself, who don't breed but want to experience showing. Hopefully there will be a place for us in 10 years!

 

[MountainMeadows]

My stallion, Prince, is an example of shetland being blended with AMHA stock - of course the AMHA stock also ultimately goes back into pony, and due to the old thoughts about pony being "bad" Prince's dam & granddam had their pony heritage thrown in the trash - but that said, Prince is a pretty decent example of what can be accomplished with "blending". He is far from "finished" in my humble opinion - but I am not unhappy with how he has turned out and how he is producing - to be perfectly honest, my biggest frustration in the whole "evolution of breeding" game is the fact that the consistency is still questionable. For examply, Prince is spot on 34" - and his FULL brother is a whopping 29". It takes time, and generation after generation - but we will get there thanks to the many dedicated breeders who love this breed no matter what size or paperwork it carries

 

[Crabtree Farm]

My stallion, Prince, is an example of shetland being blended with AMHA stock - of course the AMHA stock also ultimately goes back into pony, and due to the old thoughts about pony being "bad" Prince's dam & granddam had their pony heritage thrown in the trash - but that said, Prince is a pretty decent example of what can be accomplished with "blending". He is far from "finished" in my humble opinion - but I am not unhappy with how he has turned out and how he is producing - to be perfectly honest, my biggest frustration in the whole "evolution of breeding" game is the fact that the consistency is still questionable. For examply, Prince is spot on 34" - and his FULL brother is a whopping 29". It takes time, and generation after generation - but we will get there thanks to the many dedicated breeders who love this breed no matter what size or paperwork it carries

I guess the sperm carrying the dna gene for the 29" got knocked out of the way o the sperm carrying the 34" dna gene. All kidding aside, I dearly love Prince and all his offsprings are breathtaking.

 

[JWC sr.]

Prince is a really nice horse and you should be proud of him, no matter his heritage which I find to be a plus. What with the problems of dwarfism etc.

 

[Jacki Loomis]

What an interesting and healthy discussion. I do hope our ASPC/AMHR Leadership is considering this question and doing some strategic planning.

There is a reason(s) that more miniature horses are shown at the present time than shetland ponies. Smarter people than me will need to figure out all of the reasons but I think the method we use to show miniature horses is part of why miniatures have healthy entry numbers at shows.

The methods used to show miniature horses lend themselves well to less experienced showmen, beginner horsemen, youth, challenged and seniors. When I say method I'm talking about things like no shoes allowed, no need for tail sets or ribbons (other than park harness), no need for tailers or carrying whips in halter classes. In my opinion it is easy for a miniature exhibitor to train and show their own horses which translates to increased entries at miniature shows. I hope in 10 years these things are still true of the method we use to show our miniature horses.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]

 

[JWC sr.]

I think you are exactly right Jacki, we come from a cutting horse background. But the grandkids and ourselves also still needed the equine fix. So where did we go, mini's. But with that said I also have gotten into the Foundation and Classic shetlands. Why we enjoy all small equine that we can still handle and let the grandkids work with.

I have even thought about getting into Morgan's or POA's, but have passed in favor of more mini's and shetlands. Bottom line there is a big old world out there and it is made of variety which is a good thing I think!!

 

[Reble]

I can see in 10 years or a few years down the road !

DNA comes into effect

Size will always make a difference to most, everything goes in circles.

thank goodness...We are all different & can give our opinion

 

[muffntuf]

The methods used to show miniature horses lend themselves well to less experienced showmen, beginner horsemen, youth, challenged and seniors. When I say method I'm talking about things like no shoes allowed, no need for tail sets or ribbons (other than park harness), no need for tailers or carrying whips in halter classes. In my opinion it is easy for a miniature exhibitor to train and show their own horses which translates to increased entries at miniature shows. I hope in 10 years these things are still true of the method we use to show our miniature horses.

Jacki - I have a healthy respect for the things you have posted on. I agree the miniatures are a bit 'easier' in some terms to train. I started out with miniatures and trained my own miniatures to drive.

I will say my farm is a predominantly Classic, Modern Pleasure and American Show Pony farm. I still have a few miniatures that I dearly love, but they are waiting to come out of retirement.

I have only used a trainer twice. My first year I had too nice of a classic filly to not. And this year I needed to send two boys out, otherwise they would have sat in the barn, wasting away.

Otherwise, I feed, muck stalls, fit, train and show my own ponies. And consider myself to be still 'new' at this.

I also want to note, I do use a catch handler when I get into sticky situations where I have two going in to the same Championship class because I cannot handle both.

I find the shetlands to be just as easy and just as willing as the miniatures to train.

I do recognize that not everyone wants a pony, but I don't want anyone to not give them a try either - I find it very rewarding to run down the rail with an ASPR pony that I have trained, learned to groom and added in the bells and whistles of tails and ribbons.

I wish more people would try it - as a matter of fact - John is right - for the first time Congress will be broadcast live via webcast the whole week. I hope everyone takes a peek. Monday is futurity day, Tuesday is Stallion Day, Wednesday is Mare day. Evenings are driving most of the time.

Hope to see your eyes there!

 

[JMS Miniatures]

What an interesting and healthy discussion. I do hope our ASPC/AMHR Leadership is considering this question and doing some strategic planning.

There is a reason(s) that more miniature horses are shown at the present time than shetland ponies. Smarter people than me will need to figure out all of the reasons but I think the method we use to show miniature horses is part of why miniatures have healthy entry numbers at shows.

The methods used to show miniature horses lend themselves well to less experienced showmen, beginner horsemen, youth, challenged and seniors. When I say method I'm talking about things like no shoes allowed, no need for tail sets or ribbons (other than park harness), no need for tailers or carrying whips in halter classes. In my opinion it is easy for a miniature exhibitor to train and show their own horses which translates to increased entries at miniature shows. I hope in 10 years these things are still true of the method we use to show our miniature horses.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]

Thank you Jacki with your post. The miniatures are defintelly a family hobby and the shows are friendly enough to where just about anyone can show. I do think AMHR does support fully in the youth, amateur and pmc programs. All can get stronger but I think AMHR does a good job.

By the sound of it this years Convention is going to have alot of possibly new changes if everyone votes on them, big changes. But like I have said before, perhaps AMHR needs to look at where is this registry going with the miniatures before any big changes take place. With the discussion with the measuring at the withers proposal I thought it was a great idea, but now I have to ask myself what is the reason for the new change, everyone wants to be the same as the rest of the horse world, but whats best for the miniatures.

Everyone has to admit it whether we like it or not we are just a height registry. Until something changes that we will always be a height registry. If you are under 38" you are a miniature horse, and that does include the shetlands. I get tired of the argument mini vs. shetland. I just want to go out and enjoy what I love to do. I wish AMHR would come on here and hear what they have to say, where do they see themselves 10 years from now.

 

[Minimor]

Goodness, where does anyone get the idea that Shetlands cannot drive? Personally I have yet to see a Shetland, even in pictures, that I considered too refined or too spindly to drive—doesn’t matter if it is the bigger ponies or the smaller ones. You (the general form of you, not anyone in particular) may like the heavier horses, and you may prefer to have a stocky built horse for driving. That doesn’t mean that the finer built horse is too slight to drive—it is simply your opinion that the finer built horses are too slight to drive. Sure, there are Shetlands that don’t drive, just because their owners don’t drive….there are plenty of Minis that don’t drive either, usually for the same reason. People—your prejudices are showing! Just because you consider a pony to be all wrong for driving doesn’t mean it actually is unsuitable for driving!

Foundation type—those wanting a Foundation Mini division are going to be very disappointed if it comes to pass! Why? Because I think you’ll be surprised at some of the horses that will get their Foundation certification. What you’re picturing as being exactly the right type may be much heavier than what someone else is picturing as the exact type….and there will surely be Foundation Minis that you consider to be much too refined. Look at the Shetlands. There are Modern ponies that have their Foundation seal. Their offspring automatically qualify for Foundation, assuming the other parent is also Foundation sealed. Some of those offspring may very well show & win in Foundation. At our show here just over a week ago there was one horse that I took to be a Shetland or at least half Shetland. The horse was being handled by an exhibitor I hadn't previously met, so I didn't know her horses at all. I went to ask her about the horse, and no, he was not Shetland--his pedigree most certainly would qualify him for Foundation Mini division if there were one--and I can just imagine the complaining if there was such a division and he was showing in it, and if he won in it--and given his conformation, conditioning and overall QUALITY I suggest he would have a very good chance of winning in ANY competition, and any division.

I don’t think it is possible to have enough divisions so that every horse can be a winner. No matter what divisions we have, there will always be someone—multiple people—will be displeased and are likely to complain that it’s unfair that they keep getting beat by the wrong sort of horse.

I'm sorry—I’m still shaking my head over the sentiment that Shetlands are too refined to drive. That thought just made this thread lose its credibility for me!

Mindy—in your mind (and no doubt in the minds of others as well) it may be clear that the 29” horse is the better conformed, but in some other people’s minds it’s quite possible that the 34” horse was the better conformed. One judge likes a horse with a good long hip and good muscling; another judge doesn’t like a solid hip and doesn’t care if it’s got good length, she wants to see a scrawny rear end because that looks more refined. Which one is right? Well, I know which one I would side with, but I also know that not everyone would make that same choice.

Minis are easier for more people to show in that there is very little running involved when you're showing in halter. I know many people say they cannot run well enough to do rail work with ponies. for my part that is one thing I really enjoy with the ponies. It's great fun to go out on the rail & trot up & down, showing off what marvelous movers my ponies are. I'm no spring chicken, but I can still run!! I do find it unfortunate that the method of showing Minis doesn't allow the good moving ones to show off the fact that they are good moving. I know I'm repeating myself when I say that I personally find the tiddly little trot so many people do with their Minis in the halter ring to be a little dull--I do think there needs to be more emphasis on movement in the Mini halter classes.

Otherwise, in terms of showing ponies--you do NOT need to have whips, and you do not need to shoe your ponies--especially not if you are showing Classics and Foundations, and not even for Modern Pleasure if you don't want to. (For MP you will need to braid). I showed 6 ponies at the last show, all Classics and Foundations, and I did not carry a whip for any of them, not even the yearling filly that hasn't been here very long and hasn't had much in the way of show training or even practice at leading! She showed very nicely for me and led up well, and trotted out really nicely--no whip, no tailer required.