Where is AMHR going 10 years from now?

[JMS Miniatures]

I don't think anyone is saying shetlands can't drive, I think what we are saying is everyone wants to breed for more refinement. Again how much more refiner can you get. I sure hope todays shetland can drive. That is what they are bred to do, they are working ponies. I do know the shetlands can do performance. Like I have said eariler they should be awesome kids horses with all the riding classes Congress has to offer.

If having a foundation class isn't a good idea then fine. Then can someone tell me what is the point in having foundation classes with the shetlands? Just asking a question cause it can work the same way. Yes sure foundation classes are also in predictment due to the AMHR/ASPC horses going into it cause they can't compete against the bigger shetlands cause they are too small, but yet they are not of foundation type. They say taller is better with the minis, but switch it around vice versa people are complaining that the same AMHR/ASPC horses are going into foundation and are yelling non-type.

 

[LaVern]

You asked where we think the AMHR will be in ten years. I feel very strongly that it will be here and all over the world, much stronger than it is now, if we can hang together and make sound financial decisions both at home and in our office.

I also feel that the Shetland influence is here to stay and our B horses are going to take on a little different look. But, I think it is going to be the crosses of the two that are going to come out on top. I have seen some spectacular results and I feel that is were we will head. And once they are crossed they are just Straight old AMHR horses.

There is something else that I feel is going to happen. I think that all people will care about is the influence and the look, not two sets of papers.

I have purchase a few Shetland- Mini papered small mares, to try with my Straight stallions. I don't care a bit about the Shetland papers. When we start crossing the best of both- all they will be- is AMHR but some might be very good, and smaller, maybe.

All these years I have worried about my beloved old B horses and now I am worried about the fate of the Shetlands. It seems that all some of us want them for is to make better AMHR horses.

So I think that AMHR is here to stay.

 

[Jacki Loomis]

I love this discussion, we can all throw out our own diverse opinions among this very thoughtful group of forum members. Hearing the comments from those who agree or not helps us all to form better opinions. Thank you for taking part in this thread that I am so enjoying!!

Where I hope we are in 10 years: I hope we have implemented a DNA program that is mandatory for all Miniature Horses and Ponies used in breeding, if they show up on a stallion report they must have DNA on file.

This is why I think now is the time to begin phasing in DNA for breeding animals:

1) A registry has a responsibility to it's members to use the best available practices to insure the integrity of the stud book.

2) We are in an economic correction, it is not to our benefit to encourage over breeding. A DNA policy on the horizon would encourage thoughtful and careful breeding practices.

How I think it should be implemented:

1) A carefully drafted policy should be suggested with an implementation date at least 4 years from when the policy goes into effect. Maybe a committee could write a White Paper to get us started.

2) A means of soliciting member comments should be implemented, again take our time with this also so we can find some points the majority can agree to.

3) Some association support should be made available, perphaps reduced or free DNA for every stallion on a stallion report during the first 1-2 years of the policy. Yes, I know this would be an expense but I believe our association's resources should be used to support directives that will serve the membership.

4) DNA would only be required for horses used in breeding, geldings are excluded as our stallions and mares who do not show up on breeding reports.

Thats all I've thought of so far, can't wait to hear what others think about DNA.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]

 

[MountainMeadows]

Jacki

I have always thought that DNA/PQ'ing is a positive for any registry. It would probably be a lot more popular if the DNA that has been done to the AMHA horses would be recognized by AMHR - I find it irritating that they are not reciprocal, and there is no good reason for it not to be except that the registry loses money by being reciprocal. That seems like a low blow

Stac

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Jacki

I have always thought that DNA/PQ'ing is a positive for any registry. It would probably be a lot more popular if the DNA that has been done to the AMHA horses would be recognized by AMHR - I find it irritating that they are not reciprocal, and there is no good reason for it not to be except that the registry loses money by being reciprocal. That seems like a low blow

Stac

I know when I hardshipped in a stallion into R using his A papers he was DNAd and it was typed onto his AMHR papers that he was DNAd. So maybe they would. I know DNA is costly to any breeder, but it is necessary IMO.

 

[Jacki Loomis]

I know when I hardshipped in a stallion into R using his A papers he was DNAd and it was typed onto his AMHR papers that he was DNAd. So maybe they would. I know DNA is costly to any breeder, but it is necessary IMO.

It would seem logical to me that AMHR could recognize DNA previously used with another registry if it came from a recognized lab. That would seem like an easy fix, I'm all for anything that would make it more economical for our members.

There we go, one obstacle overcome!

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]

 

[Minimor]

I can't say for sure why ASPC added a Foundation division--it was already in place when I first joined ASPC/AMHR. I believe it was to preserve the foundations of the breed--the old style ponies--but I don't believe that AMHR should add a Foundation division just because ASPC has it. It's not quite the same--the smaller, less refined pony was the basis of the ASPC registry. What is the foundation of the Miniatures? Small Shetlands! It seems to me that people want the Mini Foundation division in order to have a division where the Shetlands aren't allowed, which to me is kind of pointless when the Shetlands ARE the foundation of the Minis!!

Even in ASPC there are complaints about off type horses showing Foundation. For that matter off type ponies show in Classic too, but off type in Foundation seems to hurt worse. However, the pony people don't seem to complain as much as the Mini people do--if a foundation division was created for Minis, I foresee A LOT of discontent and complaining once people see what horses are able to compete in that division.

Yes sure foundation classes are also in predictment due to the AMHR/ASPC horses going into it cause they can't compete against the bigger shetlands cause they are too small, but yet they are not of foundation type. They say taller is better with the minis, but switch it around vice versa people are complaining that the same AMHR/ASPC horses are going into foundation and are yelling non-type.

I'm not quite following you on that one. Many pony people say the same thing as the Mini people do--tall is better when it comes to showing. I haven't heard anyone complain about AMHR/ASPC ponies showing in Foundation & being off type--From what people have told me, many of the AMHR/ASPC horses do not qualify for the Foundation division--they cannot get their seal and so cannot show Foundation. If they are going to show as Shetlands, they have to show in Classic--and that is where the complaints come in. Owners of these smaller ponies often say their ponies are too small to be competitive with the bigger ponies in Classic. In Classic, unless the classes are divided over/under, they are competing against 46" and under. In Foundation it would be only 42" and under. That is why there are people that say if they cannot show AMHR (for instance if the proposed measurement change eliminated their ponies from AMHR) that ASPC needs to add a new division for Classic ponies that are 40" & under. Even some that have their Foundation seal may not fit the type of Foundation, and so are not competitive in that division--or simply do not even show in that division. Of course there are people who do show their small ponies very successfully in the Classic division--many of them are competitive against the bigger ponies, it depends on the pony.

 

[JWC sr.]

Just wanted to chime In that AMHR/ASPC by laws committee has a web site set up for all of us to voice opinions and vote in polls about potential by law changes that would affect all of us. It has been pretty sparsely used so far, everyone might want to take the time to take a look at it.

 

[kaykay]

I do hope that mandatory DNA testing is implemented in both AMHR and ASPC. It should be done in conjunction with Parent Qualifying. I do think it needs to be phased in slowly so as not to over burden breeders all at once, but it needs to be done.

I am trying to gradually DNA on my own as I do think it legitimizes a breeding program. Its not fool proof (nothing ever is) but it will add respect and make it harder for people to cheat.

 

[txminipinto]

I do hope that mandatory DNA testing is implemented in both AMHR and ASPC. It should be done in conjunction with Parent Qualifying. I do think it needs to be phased in slowly so as not to over burden breeders all at once, but it needs to be done.

I am trying to gradually DNA on my own as I do think it legitimizes a breeding program. Its not fool proof (nothing ever is) but it will add respect and make it harder for people to cheat.

The sweepstakes programs are a step in this direction. And DNAing is fool proof if the individual pulling the hairs is honest.

However, the more ponies and horses that are DNA'd and the more foals that are checked against that DNA, then yes, it will make those dishonest people work a little harder to be dishonest and win.

 

[Sue_C.]

I can't say for sure why ASPC added a Foundation division--it was already in place when I first joined ASPC/AMHR. I believe it was to preserve the foundations of the breed--the old style ponies--but I don't believe that AMHR should add a Foundation division just because ASPC has it. It's not quite the same--the smaller, less refined pony was the basis of the ASPC registry. What is the foundation of the Miniatures? Small Shetlands! It seems to me that people want the Mini Foundation division in order to have a division where the Shetlands aren't allowed, which to me is kind of pointless when the Shetlands ARE the foundation of the Minis!!

Of course we would need a "foundation" division. As to "What is the foundation of the Miniatures?"...why MINIATURES of course... You say "Small Shetlands", but in many cases, there have been SEVERAL generations past since any Shetland blood weas added. Let's give the MINIATURE HORSE BREEDERS some credit for producing this fine breed. Good grief...a Shetland 30 years back in a horse`s pedigree isn`t what makes it what it is TODAY. Add to that, it would give the miniature breeders who DO NOT WANT to add any hackney to their horses, a chance to breed for what they want. It isn`t ALL about Shetlands.

I do hope that mandatory DNA testing is implemented in both AMHR and ASPC. It should be done in conjunction with Parent Qualifying. I do think it needs to be phased in slowly so as not to over burden breeders all at once, but it needs to be done.

Yes, it would be smart of the Registry to accept lab test from another REPUTABLE lab, so the AMHA horses that have been hardshipped in, can just have their paperwork sent in and accepted. Absolutely. as for it bering phased in slowly, yes, by all means...do it exactly as AMHA did it. it wasn`t that long ago that the AMHA implimented this as well. I am not sure of the exact date it was required, but some of my older stock didn`t have to be DNA`s as thier birthdates fell behind the obligatory "DNA start date", so to speak.

 

[LaVern]

I think the Sweepstakes horses were able to use Cal Davis DNA markers. But I don't think that AMHA will acknowledge Kentucky.

I am all for implementing DNA and eventually more important parent qualification.

I have always thought that any pony or horse hard shipped into AMHR should have to be parent qualified. It only seems right. Most of the AMHA horses coming probably have both parents DNA'd already.

Also for those of us that have started to do it. I hope that it can be put on our AMHR papers automatically.

 

[txminipinto]

I can't comment on the AMHR sweepstakes but the Classic uses Kentucky. The issue with DNA is that you need to use the same lab as there hasn't been a database set up for equine DNA for parentage that all labs have access too. Had this issue crop up this year for the Classic sweepstakes. If I send the foal's DNA to UK and the dam's was sent somewhere else, UK doesn't have any data to compare it to. As far as I know, AMHR/ASPC only has a contract with UK.

 

[~Lisa~]

at the risk of repeating myself.. the Shetlands allowed in some Hackney blood for a while to help give them the look they felt they wanted however even the ASPC decided enough was enough and changed the rules.

This debate can go back and forth for hours and days but...

The truth is miniature owners are the majority- those that show are well what 1700 approx to Nationals yearly so lets say a guesstimate of 3000 minis a year in the breed show ring compared to the thousands that are registered.

Use the power you have in numbers to speak for what you want. If the majority does not want additional Shetland blood then vote to close the hardshipping period.

I think we all need to remember that those that show are not the majority and for all those who own and love Shetlands and of course love the market this has created for them.. there are just as many who feel perhaps other breeds would give us the improvement looked for and that ASPC might not be the only way to go

The reality that seems to be missing here is that there is a reason the ASPC papers were tossed in the trash can- logical or not- like it or not- agree with it or not miniatures are the money makers and the majority of mini owners/breeders (again the bread and butter of this registry) do not want ASPC . Again you might not agree- might not see the reasoning but the facts are the facts if all those mini owners wanted ASPC then perhaps there would have been no need to "create" a new breed in the first place and everyone could have been able to market their small Shetlands.

This is not a debate about are Shetlands good or not- to refined or not- can drive or not- are crazy or not. That debate will go on forever no different then any other breed myths like Arabs and T/B deal with.

I can show 100 mini owners how nice my ponies are to be around and well over 75 percent will not change their minds that is ok. We all love what we have and what we breed even if the facts do not always match. Hearing the ASPC is one of the purest breeds out there is not fact but those that love them will love them no matter what - those that love QH will defend them that is not what this should be about. It is about keeping the registry flourishing during a tough economy. Keeping the majority here and registering horses.

What people choose to do when it comes to type in their own programs is not necessarily what will keep the registry financially sound.

This is about a registry that began flourished for whatever reason once the word Shetland was taken away from and off of the little horses. They might in fact be Shetland bred but again.. the market needed that word that title taken away to grow as it has and bring in the revenue. Why would we want to bring something back in that did not help the financial aspect of this registry.

I think looking at things as a business and looking at things as a breeder and what you personally want are two different things.

Look how many wanted draft type minis- or vanner type minis- of course the Shetland people will want Shetland type minis and those who come from drafts will prefer that.

It comes down to who and what the the majority want. The majority after all is what brings in the dollars.

 

[Jacki Loomis]

I can't comment on the AMHR sweepstakes but the Classic uses Kentucky. The issue with DNA is that you need to use the same lab as there hasn't been a database set up for equine DNA for parentage that all labs have access too. Had this issue crop up this year for the Classic sweepstakes. If I send the foal's DNA to UK and the dam's was sent somewhere else, UK doesn't have any data to compare it to. As far as I know, AMHR/ASPC only has a contract with UK.

Carin,

Thanks for adding to our DNA discussion with this first had knowledge of the lab situation. Seems an approach our leadership could take would be discussions with AMHA to coordinate the lab of choice for both associations. Although it may seem unlikely that they would do it, jointly they would have higher volume which often times translates into lower prices. For the sake of this discussion I'll assume cooperation between them is not impossible and then by the time we actually have a DNA policy it could be true!

I'm glad you brought up the programs that already use DNA within our association. Is there also is a rule on registering older shetlands that requires DNA as well? Maybe this is all just a part of the evolution and in the future we'll have a full fledged DNA policy.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]

 

[txminipinto]

Yes, Jacki, older shetlands who are not registered by a certain age have to go through the DNA process as well.

 

[Sue_C.]

at the risk of repeating myself.. the Shetlands allowed in some Hackney blood for a while to help give them the look they felt they wanted however even the ASPC decided enough was enough and changed the rules.

And yet, just here lately on LB there was someone saying they have a Shetland mare by a registered Hackney stallion...who is ALSO, a registered Shetland pony.

Now I will repeat MY-self...I don't know why it is so difficult for some of you to understand. Some of us just want to keep our miniature horses as they are...with no outcrossing. What would it hurt to make that happen...seriously? For those who WANT to outcross, by all means, "fill your boots", but DON'T take what WE prefer away from us in doing it. Why on earth is it so difficult to consider making divisions...you say you think we NEED outcrossing, fine...I say we don't, but with the different divisions...just like the breed you want to outcross with, ALREADY HAS...we can all be happy.

 

[txminipinto]

And yet, just here lately on LB there was someone saying they have a Shetland mare by a registered Hackney stallion...who is ALSO, a registered Shetland pony.

Now I will repeat MY-self...I don't know why it is so difficult for some of you to understand. Some of us just want to keep our miniature horses as they are...with no outcrossing. What would it hurt to make that happen...seriously? For those who WANT to outcross, by all means, "fill your boots", but DON'T take what WE prefer away from us in doing it. Why on earth is it so difficult to consider making divisions...you say you think we NEED outcrossing, fine...I say we don't, but with the different divisions...just like the breed you want to outcross with, ALREADY HAS...we can all be happy.

The soul of the issue is that AMHR is a height registry just like Pinto is a color registry. Both accept horses with certain outcross papers that meet their requirements. As long as this is the case, horses will continue to be hardshipped. If you don't like the look of the AMHR/ASPC horse, then that's fine. No one is forcing you to start breeding that particular animal. We should all buy and breed what we like because we are the ones spending the money. But.........don't stomp your feet and cry when an AMHR/ASPC horse beats an AMHR horse. Each and every year there are more AMHR/ASPC horses and they are taking most of the top national titles. This is where AMHR is heading. Its a fact. You can deny the history of the miniature horse (first association EVER was AMHR, which was created by ASPC) all you want. But they have all derived from shetland, grade, and flabella crosses. I see anyone wanting to be competitive with AMHR and eventually AMHA, as several as those trainers and breeders ARE competing at Nationals AND Congress in the last few years), you will have to bring in some shetland blood to your current stock. Its what I'm seeing in the local and National ring and it's what I'm advising my clients (which does not benefit me as a shetland breeder because I breed for the over ponies). The bottom line of staying competitive is keeping up with the trends and watching what others are doing.

Case in point, I have not liked some of the horses that were pinned Grand in the Foundation and Classic divisions. I felt they were too extreme. I stomped my feet for awhile until they got sore. Then I decided that if I wanted to stay competitive I would have to alter my breeding program a bit. And I have. I swore I would never have a B papered Shetland in my herd. I currently have two. I could have stayed with my Foundations but staying on that path would not make me competitive in the future. So I had to alter some things to secure my programs future. And I'm very pleased with the ponies I have and the ones I've produced in the last couple years.

 

[kaykay]

Now I will repeat MY-self...I don't know why it is so difficult for some of you to understand. Some of us just want to keep our miniature horses as they are...with no outcrossing. What would it hurt to make that happen...seriously? For those who WANT to outcross, by all means, "fill your boots", but DON'T take what WE prefer away from us in doing it. Why on earth is it so difficult to consider making divisions...you say you think we NEED outcrossing, fine...I say we don't, but with the different divisions...just like the breed you want to outcross with, ALREADY HAS...we can all be happy.

The beauty of our Association is that there is a horse for EVERYONE. If you dont like ASPC/AMHR horses then dont breed them. Dont like B division? Breed A divsion! No one has to outcross. Breed what you like because you are the one feeding them and looking at them out the window

Kay

 

[Sue_C.]

The bottom line of staying competitive is keeping up with the trends and watching what others are doing.

Ahhh, but therein lies the problem, as I see it. "Staying competative, and following trends", in other breeds, usually means how you dress, show, or otherwise fit your horse/pony...not a change in the breed persay. This is not comparable to that at all. Heck, "trends" change with the wind...we are talking about possibly changing an entire breed.

Like I asked before...why IS IT so hard for some of you to even consider divisions? Why do you who want the Shetland influence, so determined to not consider this? Heck, I love the "B" horses, and yet, don't feel the need to add Shetland blood to them to produce good horses.