Yet Another Height-Related Proposal

[stormy]

Wouldn't it be easier to just add a Park class so these extreme moving moderns are not showing in Pleasure but in the more appropriate park class? I know shetland people tell me they are not extreme enough for Park but this is AMHR, not ASPC. Show park as in Arab type park, some minis might bump into this class too.

 

[midnight star stables]

Just wondering, but isn't the Park harness class already for "these" type of horses?

And some shows don't offer this class, so I really don't see a problem with a Modern showing in any of these classes. They are simply raising the bar for more movement. I see nothing wrong with that. There are some current horses, a few outstanding A size minis, that have increasing movement! A few of Mike McCabe and Patty Cloke's horses are quite extreme. I must be missing the whole picture.

And with the shear numbers of miniatures, even 100 of these Moderns will not have a huge impact on our breed. There are just simply not enough of them. Some farms breed hundreds of miniature foals each year.

 

[Mominis]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but AMHR horses are a height breed, right? Why is it considered to be an asset when a miniature horse looks like an Arabian but one that trots like a Saddlehorse is detrimental to the breed? Isn't that what this is about, when you break it down? If they measure in, let 'em show.

 

[kaykay]

Bob

You and I usually agree, but I strongly disagree with this. Breed or buy a better horse that can beat this one! Isnt that the goal?? To breed better? Raising the bar is supposed to be a good thing.

This horse is A MINIATURE HORSE. It measured 38 or under and got his AMHR papers so it is a miniature!

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Bob

You and I usually agree, but I strongly disagree with this. Breed or buy a better horse that can beat this one! Isnt that the goal?? To breed better? Raising the bar is supposed to be a good thing.

This horse is A MINIATURE HORSE. It measured 38 or under and got his AMHR papers so it is a miniature!

Kay, why don't people understand that. It is a height registry.

And if my memory is correct, wasn't Rowdy a hackney? And wasn't he AMHA registered or did he hold AMHR papers too? He measured in.

 

[disneyhorse]

Rowdy was a Shetland pony, NOT a hackney pony. There are some Shetland ponies that were rumored to be Hackney ponies but he wasn't one of them.

Andrea

 

[Belinda]

Kay, why don't people understand that. It is a height registry.

And if my memory is correct, wasn't Rowdy a hackney? And wasn't he AMHA registered or did he hold AMHR papers too? He measured in.

I know first hand Rowdy was NOT a Hackney .. His sire was Kewpie's Sun who was by Kewpie Dolls Oracle

Also as it stands now AMHR & AMHA are just a height Registry so if a horse measures under 34 or 38" , then they are consider a Miniature horse at this time.. Regardless of how high they step or how long their neck is or how refined they are.. LOL !!!!!

 

[Minimor]

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

Sorry, but I still don't see the point. Under AMHR rules, any pony that legally measures in as a mini is entitled to be registered as a Mini, and then can show as a mini. It can be used for breeding as a Mini. I see that as a good thing--if you're okay with classics being measured into AMHR, why not Moderns?? With so few actual Moderns being measured in, adding this extra division for them will--in most locations--mean that anyone showing a Modern Shetland Mini will be competing just against themselves.
Golly, when we were in Morgans people would say "anything to win" and they were meaning action devices, ginger, tongue ties and whatever other gadgets they had to enhance this or that. In Minis apparently it is still anything to win, only that means to change rules to eliminate competition. How sporting.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

I know first hand Rowdy was NOT a Hackney .. His sire was Kewpie's Sun who was by Kewpie Dolls Oracle

Also as it stands now AMHR & AMHA are just a height Registry so if a horse measures under 34 or 38" , then they are consider a Miniature horse at this time.. Regardless of how high they step or how long their neck is or how refined they are.. LOL !!!!!

Thanks for the information, my memory did fail me. But I have yet to hear of anyone saying they didn't want any Rowdy blood in their bloodlines. But he not only measured small enough for AMHR, but AMHA. Height is height, no matter what the bloodlines.

 

[~Lisa~]

This horse is A MINIATURE HORSE. It measured 38 or under and got his AMHR papers so it is a miniature!

ahhhhh but this is clearly not always the case.. be it a ASPC horse or a 35 inch AMHA horse...

Just casue a horse is hardshipped or at a show or in the ring does not mean it is a certain height. Bottom line is we MUST DEMAND our stewards measure honestly and accurately or face punishment.

I am not talking .25 of an inch or even sometimes .50 inch we all know with the ridiculous way we measure that last mane hairs can be different for every steward but when you see horses that are clearly inches above the rest there is a problem.

 

[kaykay]

Lisa if the horse has AMHR papers then it is a registered miniature horse! Unless you protest it and prove that it is over 38 it will continue to be a miniature horse.

I do realize there is a problem with measuring (although I have been flamed time and time again for even suggesting that on here) But that doesnt mean every horse that wins was not measured correctly.

But this thread is about a winning "type" of driving horse that apparently people do not want to compete against. Not one person has said the horse is over height. Bob even says they are within the height range

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

So Im not sure why you keep bringing that up?

Kay

 

[~Lisa~]

Any talk of any proposal of measuring does not change the fact that the actual measuring of the horses no matter at what point is a huge issue but...

Your right Kay.. I am frankly not sure why I bring up anything at all clearly not worth it..

Talking here means nothing anyway when it comes to decisionsyou can bet I will be where my vote counts

as always Kay.. LOVE AND LIGHT

 

[stormy]

OK so let me be a bit clearer about what I was trying to say. AMHR added a western country pleasure class a couple years ago, has been a big success. Why not put a Park class on the other end for the extreme movers! Nothing wrong with moving like a saddlebred, just not many that move that extreme yet and you can't really judge a Pleasure horse and a park horse in the same class...which is better? Hard to say, they are differant types, differant movement, both beautiful to see.

Pleasure horses are not supposed to move that extreme by definition. We have raised the bar but can't we make a place for both the long strided horses that break level and the more trappy Park type? Do we want to lose that lovely long strided movement? Let's showcase both and yes some minis would move up into the Park division as well, not just moderns.

Not trying to cut out the competition but hoping to open another door that may be more attractive to many and draw more people into the showring!

 

[midnight star stables]

OK so let me be a bit clearer about what I was trying to say. AMHR added a western country pleasure class a couple years ago, has been a big success. Why not put a Park class on the other end for the extreme movers! Nothing wrong with moving like a saddlebred, just not many that move that extreme yet and you can't really judge a Pleasure horse and a park horse in the same class...which is better? Hard to say, they are differant types, differant movement, both beautiful to see.

Pleasure horses are not supposed to move that extreme by definition. We have raised the bar but can't we make a place for both the long strided horses that break level and the more trappy Park type? Do we want to lose that lovely long strided movement? Let's showcase both and yes some minis would move up into the Park division as well, not just moderns.

Not trying to cut out the competition but hoping to open another door that may be more attractive to many and draw more people into the showring!

There is a Park Harness class in AMHR.

 

[Lewella]

OK so let me be a bit clearer about what I was trying to say. AMHR added a western country pleasure class a couple years ago, has been a big success. Why not put a Park class on the other end for the extreme movers! Nothing wrong with moving like a saddlebred, just not many that move that extreme yet and you can't really judge a Pleasure horse and a park horse in the same class...which is better? Hard to say, they are differant types, differant movement, both beautiful to see.

Pleasure horses are not supposed to move that extreme by definition. We have raised the bar but can't we make a place for both the long strided horses that break level and the more trappy Park type? Do we want to lose that lovely long strided movement? Let's showcase both and yes some minis would move up into the Park division as well, not just moderns.

Not trying to cut out the competition but hoping to open another door that may be more attractive to many and draw more people into the showring!

AMHR already has a Park Harness class - it has been around several years longer than the Western Country Pleasure classes have.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

Just because a horse has extreme movement for pleasure, does not mean it would be able to be a true park horse. So I guess there needs to be a country park class for those too extreme for pleasure, but not extreme for park.

I have watched park classes at nationals in the past, but noticed sometimes the horses didn't really have the true action for park. But the horses who did win, did perform to the standards and motion of a park division. And there were some who would have done better in another class. That was my opinion.

 

[stormy]

That is why I suggested Park as it is shown with Arabians, we have many horses between Pleasure and the VERY extreme Park Harness horses...I have not seen Morgan park classes or even saddlebred park classes so can only speak from my experiance with Arabians. We do keep pushing the ceiling in performance in AMHR so lets give these horses a place to perform and show against their type, it is not like the driving classes are so small at Nationals adding another division would take away the competition, heck most classes had so many it was like driving down an LA freeway!!

A true park horse is relative to an individuals experiance, Hackney is not the only standard to measure a park horse by.

 

[midnight star stables]

Just because a horse has extreme movement for pleasure, does not mean it would be able to be a true park horse. So I guess there needs to be a country park class for those too extreme for pleasure, but not extreme for park.

I have watched park classes at nationals in the past, but noticed sometimes the horses didn't really have the true action for park. But the horses who did win, did perform to the standards and motion of a park division. And there were some who would have done better in another class. That was my opinion.

As from one who loves to watch a good Park harness class, I would have to agree with you! Some horses in that class are absolutely in the wrong class and make the class look like a joke (IMO). Jason Prince exhibits some beautiful park horses, as I have seen Larry Parnell. I feel, because Park is not really taken seriously, that is why so many show in Pleasure - A class where it is hard to win!

Personally, I can't wait to finally have a REAL AMHR park harness horse!

 

[BannerBrat]

Bob

You and I usually agree, but I strongly disagree with this. Breed or buy a better horse that can beat this one! Isnt that the goal?? To breed better? Raising the bar is supposed to be a good thing.

This horse is A MINIATURE HORSE. It measured 38 or under and got his AMHR papers so it is a miniature!

This is coming from someone that has no desire to be in the show ring.

I don't have any animosity towards those who do it, just not my thing.

I feel that no one would have a problem if the classes are fair. Example: It would be unfair to show a hackney and a miniature horse in the breed ring where the breed standard was that of the Hackney. However if the classes are judged correctly and the horses are in the correct class than problem solves itself.

I hate to see a well trained horse beaten by a looney greenie, because the greenie has more 'spark'.

So, I think that if the horse measures in, is put in the right class, and then wins because he meets the standard correctly, then yippee for him.

Now when all this is put into halter, well I don't have much of an opinion. Never cared too much for halter. And it seems like if we follow the trend for halter that we have been we will see flashy-ier, leggy-ier horse being bred. I am sad to see it, but then again I know there are others who agree with me, so I know I'll always be able to find a horse when I need one.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Crabtree Farm]

That is why I suggested Park as it is shown with Arabians, we have many horses between Pleasure and the VERY extreme Park Harness horses...I have not seen Morgan park classes or even saddlebred park classes so can only speak from my experiance with Arabians. We do keep pushing the ceiling in performance in AMHR so lets give these horses a place to perform and show against their type, it is not like the driving classes are so small at Nationals adding another division would take away the competition, heck most classes had so many it was like driving down an LA freeway!!

A true park horse is relative to an individuals experiance, Hackney is not the only standard to measure a park horse by.

I do not have my rulebook handy, but am pulling the section on the park division up online, but I believe the rulebook states that they must have an animated walk in the park class. I have not seen pleasure horses perform at an animated walk. Jigging is not considered an animated walk.