Yet Another Height-Related Proposal

[Yaddax3]

It is my understanding there is a proposal to create a separate set of classes for the Modern-type pony that measures as a mini. (I've heard it would include adding separate Pleasure Driving, Roadster and Park Harness classes.)

The intent, I believe, is to keep high-stepping Moderns from infiltrating and dominating current Pleasure Driving, Roadster and Park Harness classes.

Frankly, I like this idea more than measuring at the withers, which, it appears, is an attempt to tamp down the influx of Moderns into the mini world.

If the Shetlands can have a Modern division for ponies with more extreme action than the Classic and Foundation ponies, why can't minis do the same?

 

[muffntuf]

The only hitches I see are

1) Popularity - does the membership want to head this direction?

2) local area shows and National area shows trying to add in more classes without extending into another partial or whole day

3) AMHR Nationals - will this add another half day to them to squeeze in the new classes?

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Are you referring at actual "Moderns", or are you referring to very refined classic shetlands. There are actually very few Moderns that are that small. I would like to see what type of horse you are referring to. Outside of the Modern shetlands that actually perform in perhaps the park class.

There are only a handful of true Moderns that hold AMHR papers. So in which term of "Modern" are you referring to?

 

[Crabtree Farm]

If they do separate out the "moderns", then you will upset the people who still breed what they feel are the older style "foundation" miniatures.

 

[Yaddax3]

It's not my proposal and I haven't seen it. I only have heard about it in general terms. So, I don't know how it is written.

My guess is, the proposal, if ratified, would create a division for minis that more closely resemble the Over mini that won Pleasure Over and Roadster Over last September. But that is just my guess.

 

[kaykay]

It would make a lot more sense and benefit more people to have a foundation miniature class verses a Modern. As Tina said there are very few true Moderns that can fit into the height limit. In effect you would be creating a division for under 10 horses.

 

[Miniv]

Don't Flame me, but I'm confused.

Last I checked, AMHR was for miniature horses who fit into the height (and conformation) requirements. The term "Modern" is regarding Shetlands, right?

Aren't we talking apples and oranges here?

 

[Crabtree Farm]

The term "modern" can have two interpretations.

One being the "Modern" shetland pony which is a close comparison to a hackney or a small saddlebred for those who are not familiar with the shetlands.

The second interpretation is for what is being bred and produced today. Quite a difference than when the association was created. Today there is much more refinement, than some of the body type of the old foundation bloodline. And in certain cases is still being produced today.

So before anyone throws in the word "modern", make sure there is clarification as to which "Modern" you are referring to.

 

[muffntuf]

Isn't the reference here though more on motion? I am just curious and want to clarify.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

There are some miniatures AMHR that have more motion than some shetlands. So I am reading and understanding it to be modern shetlands. As in breeding. Otherwise it should simple be started as "high stepping", and not use the term "modern". When I read the use of modern in any paragraph, I picture a pony like Michigan's Heartbreaker or El Matador or a pony like RFP's 6/8 Time. Those are modern ponies.

 

[Minimor]

I also have to question what the term "Modern" means in this case. Does it mean strictly those Modern Shetlands which are hardshipped into AMHR, or does it mean any AMHR horse that also has ASPC and looks too much like a Shetland, making it "modern" in terms of AMHR type?

If Modern Shetland then I would say that there aren't enough Modern Shetlands that are registered AMHR to make it worthwhile. There is no point in starting a new division for 10 horses--not even for 20 or 30 horses nationwide.

If "Modern type" miniature then I would say the same as I have said before about starting a "foundation type" division for miniatures--there will just be a lot of hard feelings over it. Horses that look too extreme for some will be showing in the regular AMHR--some will complain they should be in the modern division, others will say they don't look modern at all, they belong in the regular AMHR division. If Modern Shetland specifically--what will determine Modern Shetland? What if it's a pony that has never been shown as a pony, but gets its AMHR papers--how will it be decided, and by whom, that the pony would be a Modern and not a Classic if shown as a pony?? Someone will show up with a fancy Classic and others will complain it is a Modern...

And regardless of what Modern means--I rather hope that if there is a new AMHR division created that it will be an optional division for shows. In many areas there isn't an issue with Modern Shetlands being shown AMHR (we have none here) and it seems pointless to require shows in these areas to offer classes for that new division when there absolutely are not any entries for it in the area. If shows want to have it, fine, but make it optional for those who don't.

 

[kaykay]

Just guessing so dont flame me please

My guess is, the proposal, if ratified, would create a division for minis that more closely resemble the Over mini that won Pleasure Over and Roadster Over last September.

I have seen pictures of this miniature and he does resemble a modern shetland but he is within the height limit. So that does make him a miniature horse. I know there was a lot of grumbling when he won.

Seems silly though to create a new division due to one horse winning.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Just guessing so dont flame me please

I have seen pictures of this miniature and he does resemble a modern shetland but he is within the height limit. So that does make him a miniature horse. I know there was a lot of grumbling when he won.

Seems silly though to create a new division due to one horse winning.

I do not have a Journal handy. Can you mention the name on the forum?

 

[kaykay]

For the life of me I cannot remember his name but I know his picture was in the Journal.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

I found my Journal.

Over pleasure was won by CLR Crusin 36-38.

Over roadster was won by Silver Meadows Unbridled Masterpiece 36-38.

Which do you refer to?

I would say not modern looking for CLR, though you can not tell from one photo, but I don't know if he trots level or just flat kneed. Moderns trot like pistons. He is pretty and refined though.

Masterpiece I believe is a grandson to Heartbreaker. A very nice example of modern, though I liked his headset better when I saw him two years ago. He was a beautiful example of a fine harness pony. But the photo in the Journal does not do him justice.

To see another nice modern go to Little Kings Farm's stallion page and look at RFP's 6/8 Time.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

I first saw Unbridled Masterpiece two years ago and fell in love with him. He is my choice to breed my mare to. Possibility the resulting foal would measure in as a miniature.

 

[~Lisa~]

I believe the term is meaning just what it says MODERNS showing as minis they are out there -a couple may truly be in size.. others are clearly not insize while there is not hundreds out there it is only a matter of time

the issue comes back to no matter how we measure Bottom line is stewards need to do their jobs, be honest, know the rules and not allow horses that are clearly over 38 inches in the registry be they Modern ASPC horses or anything else

They need to have sanctions imposed when they clearly allow a larger horse do it more then once perhaps suspension. It is hard we do not have a lot of stewards but the ones we have must be held to a professional standard

 

[Crabtree Farm]

I believe the term is meaning just what it says MODERNS showing as minis they are out there -a couple may truly be in size.. others are clearly not insize while there is not hundreds out there it is only a matter of time

the issue comes back to no matter how we measure Bottom line is stewards need to do their jobs, be honest, know the rules and not allow horses that are clearly over 38 inches in the registry be they Modern ASPC horses or anything else

They need to have sanctions imposed when they clearly allow a larger horse do it more then once perhaps suspension. It is hard we do not have a lot of stewards but the ones we have must be held to a professional standard

But obviously these "ponies" or "moderns" had to be measured at Mini Nationals. So perhaps a pony or "Modern" may have cheated in for qualifications throughout the year, but then that means they were also cheated in a Nationals. Very interesting. So does anyone know if any horse that qualified at nationals that showed up in Tulsa or where ever measured over and out at the actual nationals? I am not asking if they had to be bumped up to a taller division, but truly measured over and out.

 

[Yaddax3]

There are ponies that legally measure as minis, which is why this rule proposal is going forward.

 

[muffntuf]

There are truly some shetland ponies that are measuring in as miniatures. My example on page whatever is an actual double reg.'d and it measures in in the pleasure driving. I also know a few ponies that measure in as miniatures that are Modern. The RFP line is a very small modern line.