Where is AMHR going 10 years from now?

[Jacki Loomis]

What is obvious to me from this and other discussions is that some among us are displeased with the current evolution in type of the Miniature Horse and some have suggested a new division "Foundation" as a part of the remedy. We have an example of this in the Shetlands that we can look to and evaluate. We should ask ourselves if the addition of Foundation Shetland classes has increased member's satisfaction with the show experience and if it has translated to increased entries and/or increased value of these ponies?

I don't know the answer to this and I don't show Shetlands so I have no opinion but I would be interested to hear from those who have participated in this class or have experience from the show management side.

We also show pigeons and poultry, the Standard of Perfection for these breeds is very important with most exhibitors being able to recite them word for word and rattle off each point deduction. We have a saying in this type of breeding and showing..."Beyond the Standard" or "Better than the Standard". I know that sounds like a contradiction if we are trying to perfectly match the standard but it does illustrate that evolution is present in all animal showing. Some see this evolution as a good thing and some don't. In pigeon breeding "Beyond the Standard" is most often used as a compliment.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]

 

[Minimor]

I just think it only fair to retain some of the miniature horses that attracted me to the breed in the first place. Surely I am not the only one who wants a miniature horse, not JUST a smaller shetland/hackney? WHY, just because the "trend setters" want to change their miniatures, should we ALL have to? Why they don't just show their little shetlands, as what they are...I cannot imagine...but show them as minis if you must...just don't expect us to all be happy about it.

Well, regardless of whether or not there is a Foundation division for Miniatures, you and anyone else that wants them can still have the type of Minis you prefer. There are still plenty of them around, and I for one believe there will always be plenty of them around--quite obviously there are people who prefer that sort of a horse, and they will surely continue to breed that kind of a horse, since there will be a demand for them from all those who don't want the Shetland cross ones.

In any breed, no matter what is winning in the show ring, there are always the non-show horses that are available. These may be of the type that is winning in the ring, and they may be a different type--just depends what each breeder prefers. I believe Miniatures will be the same--even if the show ring is full of the long legged, slim bodied, elegant Shetland types, there will be breeders that have the heavier boned, more stocky built Minis. No one is forcing anyone else to have any particular type of horse. The "old type" Minis won't be denied registration. They won't be denied access to the show ring. Judges won't be prohibited from using them if they choose--and some judges probably will use them, because some judges don't like the slim bodied Minis, they too like the more stocky built ones.

 

[Sue_C.]

Alright then, as the way I have been trying to get my point across isn't working...lets discuss "THE" Standard of Perfection. We do have one in the miniature breed...might not be perfect, but it is there. Now, while you who want to "improve" the breed are busy doing so...just WHICH Standard of Perfection do you suggest be adopted?

You are talking about changing the breed, but the change will not be made with the same TYPE of pony every time...so how can you SAY we don't need divisions, each with it's own standard.

GAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

 

[Minimor]

The current standard of perfection describes a well conformed horse and IMO serves the purpose as well as anything.

More specific standards of perfection serve the purpose so well anyway. Look at the Morgans. They have a written standard, AND they have a woodcut of Justin Morgan--a woodcut that is held out to be the ideal Morgan. There are people that will hold up a Lippitt as an exact replica of that woodcut. Other people will hold up a show type Morgan as exactly matching that woodcut. Then there are the Lamberts.....and the working western bred horses....all of which get touted as being the perfect match for the woodcut. They are 4 very different types--often none of which actually match the woodcut. One standard, different types.

 

[kaykay]

I could care less about breed shows, or winning in that form...did my time showing halter horses, and standing on the end of a lead line to me, is only fun until the horse is old enough to ride or drive. I show open, compete with regular ponies etc...and am interested in combined driving, so that has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.
I just think it only fair to retain some of the miniature horses that attracted me to the breed in the first place. Surely I am not the only one who wants a miniature horse, not JUST a smaller shetland/hackney? WHY, just because the "trend setters" want to change their miniatures, should we ALL have to? Why they don't just show their little shetlands, as what they are...I cannot imagine...but show them as minis if you must...just don't expect us to all be happy about it.

Sue your post makes no sense. If you dont show in AMHR shows then why would you want to add a division? What would be the point? Regardless of weather there is a mini foundation division (and I am for adding one) If you dont show it wont matter. No one is forcing anyone to breed Shetland back into their miniatures.

Jackie

I do breed and show foundation ponies. I will tell you the foundation pony division is having some issues with off types. So a foundation division is not the end all answer unfortunately

There has been talk of an under under division for classics. Not sure how real it is could just be talk.

>AMHR Board will consist of equal representation from AMHR only owners, Shetland only owners, and AMHR/Shetland owners.

What people dont realize is much of the board owns both AMHR and ASPC. People also fail to realize how much money those ASPC/AMHR horses bring in. Every time I register a foal I have to pay double fees for the two sets of papers, with all of it going to ASPC/AMHR.

Shows could never afford to hire different sets of judges for each show. That would be a financial disaster to say a show has to have seperate judges for AMHR and ASPC etc. Its hard enough for them to make a profit now.

 

[Sue_C.]

Sue your post makes no sense. If you dont show in AMHR shows then why would you want to add a division? What would be the point? Regardless of weather there is a mini foundation division (and I am for adding one) If you dont show it wont matter. No one is forcing anyone to breed Shetland back into their miniatures.

It MATTERS to me, because I am a miniature horse OWNER...it should not matter at ALL whether I show breed shows or not...it is still the breed of choice for me. This is what irks me to no end...in a lot of posts here. If you don't show this or that, have National titles, etc...etc...then you shouldn't breed, cannot POSSIBLY have good horses...and your opinion just doesn't count. I am willing to bet that the MAJORITY of the miniature horse owners don't show breed shows either, if at all, but our opinions should certainly count as much as those of any other member. A member is one vote...no matter how many horses they own/breed/show, or what shows they choose to frequent.

The division I want...is to keep the breed as it is now, having had no other influence other than the good breeders who have culled and bred the best they could to produce the best we have...and to allow us/them, to continue in THAT vein.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

There is no set standard for the miniature horses. All it is is that you have to have a good conformed 38" and under horse. Thats it. What can we go by that? Too me with what the judges are picking its leaning more towards the standard of the classic shetlands. If that is what AMHR wants, then pick that as the standard, everyone can get on with there lives, they will choose AMHA or more people will get into AMHR/ASPC. Done, no more guessing, perhaps no more arguments, no more mini vs. shetland. Before making drastic decisions like changing the way we measure our horses, perhaps they should look closer to the standard and decide what route AMHR wants to take.

 

[Ellen]

I truly believe that AMHR will continue to grow and change repetedly over the course of the next 10 years. As have the Shetlands and quite frankly all light Horse breeds.

My personal belief is that it may better suit the miniatures to have some type classifications as we do in the ponies. But that JMHO.

I don't see everyone leaving AMHR and going to AMHA, simply because AMHA is not accessable to everyone, certainly not in my area. And I believe that AMHR should leave the books open to keep that from happening.

But I must agree that all of the mini vs pony argument needs to stop. I have raised both, loved both. But prefer the look of the pony. I made the choice to switch in order to saty compettive and I am certain in a few more years I will have other descisions to make. As will we all.

 

[~Lisa~]

What is obvious to me from this and other discussions is that some among us are displeased with the current evolution in type of the Miniature Horse and some have suggested a new division "Foundation" as a part of the remedy.

Jacki Loomis

[email protected]

Actually there is another remedy. If the majority chose to do so and a proposal was sent in

Hardshipping could be closed to ASPC and AMHA leaving the bloodlines added to improve the breed as many have said is needed and leaving the B only miniatures a place to go and be included in the registry

If a foundation division was added and I am not sure I think that is the answer the result would be simple more people and shows would opt to hold AMHR shows only to ensure things did not run to long. Frankly I would think it would be a better financial decision in most areas but only time would tell.

divisions are added and added often in ASPC why would you punish AMHR saying no new divisions should be added simply cause you already have more horses that show up to a show? That does not seem to make much sense to me but again I am not sure I am for adding a division. I think I would prefer an end to hardshipping over that.

Again even ASPC said enough is enough when it came to adding new and different blood (Hackneys) well other then giving them their own divison but I feel AMHR has the right and ability to also say enough is enough.

Hmm just thinking outload here but since ASPC added ASPR for the Hackney bred ponies to still have a place to go..why is it such a bad thing for AMHR to add a divison for the ASPC/AMHR horses to go?

Maybe that would be the answer and it could be a small divison at first to see how it goes no different then ASPR whenit comes to what is needed for a show to be rated. If there is a huge draw and big classes for all divisions they can then go about adding more splits. That is exactly what ASPC does for their shows and divisions and surely there would be more horses already in AMHR that would qualify for a division split. Maybe the key is not a foundation division but instead a ASPC/R division?

 

[~Lisa~]

There is no set standard for the miniature horses.

I have to respectfully disagree I used to think the same thing but after attending SEVERAL judging clinics the person running them (teaching the judges) always says there is a standard in minis(as vaugue as it is) and that it is more then size and must be followed.

Kay you are correct about the board so seeing as that is the case I guess it would be no problem at all to ensure there are 8 Shetland seats and 8 mini seats desginated then

 

[kaykay]

It MATTERS to me, because I am a miniature horse OWNER...it should not matter at ALL whether I show breed shows or not...it is still the breed of choice for me. This is what irks me to no end...in a lot of posts here. If you don't show this or that, have National titles, etc...etc...then you shouldn't breed, cannot POSSIBLY have good horses...and your opinion just doesn't count. I am willing to bet that the MAJORITY of the miniature horse owners don't show breed shows either, if at all, but our opinions should certainly count as much as those of any other member. A member is one vote...no matter how many horses they own/breed/show, or what shows they choose to frequent.

Sue that is not at all what I said! Everyones opinion is important weather they show or not or breed or not. As long as you own an AMHR or ASPC horse your opinion matters. I know tons of great horses that are not National Champions. You are confusing two separate issues.

The only reason to add a miniature foundation division would be to add classes to a show. What other reason would there be? Heck you can advertise on your site now that you breed "foundation" miniatures you dont need to add a division to do that. I just dont understand what good adding another division will make if you dont plan on showing in it?

 

[Lisa Strass]

Had a nice reply typed up with quotes and stuff, but it disappeared in cyberspace. Grr. Anyway, I think Minimor and Carin have made some very good points in this topic.

I have seen several questions about the Foundation Division in the Shetland division and thought I would add my opinion of this "solution". Obviously, there are two different opinions amongst Shetland owners, but my personal opinion is that the Foundation Division isn't that meaningful. I understand what was trying to be accomplished... but evolution is one of those things that happens. To qualify for the Foundation Division, the horse must be the result of 4 generations of A papered breeding. Thus, as the B papered horses are bred out (since no more outside Hackney breeding is allowed), all future generations of Shetlands will eventually meet the A papered status.

My other problem with the Foundation Division is that while it has a defined type, horses that meet that type, but do not have Foundation Sealed papers are not allowed to show in it. The Foundation Division is now the only division that has restrictions on what the pedigree shows for the show ring... This doesn't always work so well either as last year a Foundation Congress Champion was named (and later the title was taken away) that didn't meet the Foundation requirements. (The point here is that it is hard to police this, so expect horses to show in the division that may not qualify.)

Personally, I think we have too many Shetland Divisions, but again, that is just my opinion.

 

[LaVern]

I wonder what would happen to the pony club if the old straight miniature cash cow did dry up? We have milked her so hard and neglected to feed and care for her for so long, but maybe we can get a few more drops if we squeeze harder and can come up with new ideas to use her. Or perhaps we can just get us a new cow. That seems to be what we have done in the past.

 

[sdmini]

I hate posting to these threads as I am not anti-ASPC. I would absolutely jump on a Rhapsody horse that was the height I like, and of course could afford.

I do however understand the AMHR breeder who wants to keep raising and being competitive with their quality non-ASPC, AMHR horse.

Look at AQHA.

Carin AQHA is NOT a good example to use. Many of the regular Joe's got tired of where the bloated halter horses and the peanut rolling WP was heading and QUIT the show circuit. Here in SD, where we raise some of the best QH in the Nation, AQHA shows are tiny. AQHA is alive and well because of the diversity of the breed and huge number of other non-AQHA events they can do with their horses. Where will the miniature horse go if it's own association denies them recognition?

The ASPC horse that meets the AMHR height requirements should be allowed to be registered and show under the current rules. That is not to say that is what our (AMHR) National Champions should have to look like.

The next ten years, I foresee the ASPC push being the best marketing ploy AMHA has ever had.

 

[txminipinto]

I hate posting to these threads as I am not anti-ASPC. I would absolutely jump on a Rhapsody horse that was the height I like, and of course could afford.

I do however understand the AMHR breeder who wants to keep raising and being competitive with their quality non-ASPC, AMHR horse.

Carin AQHA is NOT a good example to use. Many of the regular Joe's got tired of where the bloated halter horses and the peanut rolling WP was heading and QUIT the show circuit. Here in SD, where we raise some of the best QH in the Nation, AQHA shows are tiny. AQHA is alive and well because of the diversity of the breed and huge number of other non-AQHA events they can do with their horses. Where will the miniature horse go if it's own association denies them recognition?

The ASPC horse that meets the AMHR height requirements should be allowed to be registered and show under the current rules. That is not to say that is what our (AMHR) National Champions should have to look like.

The next ten years, I foresee the ASPC push being the best marketing ploy AMHA has ever had.

Marlee,

AQHA is the BEST example of what I'm trying to explain. There are HALTER horses and there are PERFORMANCE horses. Within PERFORMANCE horses with the AQHA (for example), there are WP, EP, Hunt seat, H/J, Ropin', Barrel racing, do I need to continue? Very few HALTER horses can do what the PERFORMANCE horses can do. Very few PERFORMANCE horses can do all the events or more that I listed.

No one is denying the "straight AMHR" horse recognition. What I'm saying is the "breed" is changing, just like every single other breed out there in America. The issue is not that the AMHR only horse can no longer show. The issue is its increasingly becoming non-competitive in the halter arena. And that is due to re-adding the CURRENT shetland influence (it's been there all along anyway). I have horses in my barn that fall into this problem area. So I teach them something to do other than put their ears up.

This becomes an issue when people are unwilling to bend and grow with the industry. I, myself, have faced this same problem with my own breeding stock. If you want your straight AMHR minis, FINE! No one is saying you can't. What I'm saying, and what others are saying, is if you want to stay competitive then you have to bend a little.

I have Journals back from the early 90's and even some before the time there was even such a thing as a "mini". The shetlands don't look like anything from the 1960's any more. And the minis from the 90's look nothing like the ones from 2000, 2005, or 2010. You can watch them evolve just by flipping through the pages. This isn't new. It's been happening for decades.

 

[muffntuf]

To answer a question on the Foundation Division as I see it. I think it has a place in the ASPC. But I think it needs to come out from underneath the Classic Division supervision and be its own true division.

I think it is a hard division to judge for the reason we see so many foundation sealed Classics showing in the foundation division that it has skewed the foundation division's meaning. I did have one of the clinicians point out to me at Congress last year what a Foundation should look like and now I know. And what I see winning is not IMHO a foundation pony. So I am disappointed. But then I see Modern Pleasures floating down into the Classics and Moderns floating down into the Modern Pleasure classes more and more. To me this is a judge needing to not use those ponies.

Here are my thoughts on a foundation division of AMHR - I think its a good thing. But it can't run like ASPC Foundation for the simple fact that we are talking about body type confirmation more in my opinion. With ASPC Foundation you have a height limit that makes quite a few ineligible to show. You wouldn't have that capability in AMHR.

I take this from my own pasture - I have a lovely 9 year old miniature mare - she used to win in the halter classes when she was two. Now she can't because her body type is that of a quarter horse, not the fine boned tea cups that are winning now. So I don't even try with her anymore. Its not worth my money to put her in a halter class. But if there was a class for halter that fit her body type, I would not hesitate to take her as she is still lovely. But how do you police this - keeping the finer boned tea cups out of the more substance type miniature division that you would create?

I have heard arguments from two sides on the adding more classes - frankly I don't know what to say to our registry members. I am not opposed to adding more classes and being flexible. If a class takes off then great, if it doesn't and no one enters, the show moves on still. Yet we have AMHR Nationals that already runs 2 weeks long. ASPC Congress is 5 days - and IMHO needs to expand to 6 days.

I also think that some classes are more popular in some regions than in others, so you have a regional difference of offerings for classes. My answer to that is what the past 5 years of classes for a show were successful and what the past 5 years of classes people want added to a show. Then make tough decisions.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Then Lisa can you please explain to me what is the standard of a miniature horse according to R? What should we try to breed for besides whatever the heck we want besides good conformation?

Also I can see them closing the hardshipping for AMHA and Fabella, but I cannot see that happen for ASPC. Heck there are some breeders who believe they should not have to hardship in there ASPC ponies if they fit in height. If they chose to close the hardshipping to ASPC there would be a uprising and I don't see them allowing it.

 

[JWC sr.]

To get back to the question at hand, if folks feel strongly and it is evident that some do then there need to be changes in the structure of the mini's divisions and/or make up of the board etc etc the one way and only one way that something like that happens is to make a proposal, submit it to the registry and then it is voted on by the attending membership at the annual meeting. Unless it is deemed something requiring immediate action where the BOD steps in and makes the decision.

While I personally enjoy seeing everyones ideas and thought on subjects such as this, until enough steam is built behind any particular subject to move it from just rhetoric to a rule or by-law changing proposal things remain the same.

I find it discouraging that some have seen fit to make disparaging remarks about the registry (AMHR and/or ASPC) and its members in general. I am sure we will never all agree on everything right down the line, but that does not make my opinion anymore valuable than someone else's.

This shetland versus mini war that has been going on for several years is very divisive and I sure wish there was someway to respect each others wants and desires known without being offensive to each other. Facts is that we all love small equine, be that shetlands, miniature shetlands or mini's. Breed what you want, show if you want to and remember that this is supposed to be fun for everyone!!

Just my thoughts on the subject and I choose to believe that the vast majority of the members of both registries feel the same way I do. Vaya Con Dios my friends!!!

 

[~Lisa~]

LaVern I have said that several times in this thread. It is not about what I want or what type I like as frankly I prefer the Shetlands.. but it is about the bottom line dollar the cash cow.. I realize many seem to think the ASPC/AMHR horses are that new cash cow however I am afraid they will see they were wrong and it will be to late. THere is a reason that the minis became as popular as they did once you took Shetland out of the name.. logical reason.. no I do not think so- good reason- no I do not think so but again it doesnt matter the fact is the proof is in the pudding ...or the $$ I guess

eck there are some breeders who believe they should not have to hardship in there ASPC ponies if they fit in height. If they chose to close the hardshipping to ASPC there would be a uprising and I don't see them allowing it.

Perhaps their would be however remember it is what the MAJORITY votes for and we must remember if those involved on the mini side chose to truly get involved in the process they would realize how much power they truly have

 

 

 

[LaVern]

Lisa I agree with you. I too have nothing against the ponies. It is the way our Straights have been treated and the Straight breeders money has been used to promote our competition. Were you there in Reno when it was flat out said, "We need to take all this miniature money and start using it to promote the ponies."? Well they did.

I also don't think the double thing will be our new cash cow, because I feel that there will be too many like me that will take a little from them, but won't give anything back as far as double registering.

But I fear that we will stray so far from what some love that we will alienate so many and they will leave. But, we can't tell people how to breed.