YOUR SUPPORT IS NEEDED! Do you disagree with the new Measuring Bylaw/Rule?

[Mona]

This is regards to the changing of the measuring methods. It was voted on and passed, by a 2/3 majority vote. 60 some people of the less than 100 in attendance voted for it. As of January 2009, the rules will read:

Article XI, Section 4, page 24 #776

Permanent certificates of registration shall be issued to qualified Miniature Horses who have attained the actual age of five (5) years, and measures thirty-four (34) inches or less in height, measured at the base of the withers last hairs of the mane while standing squarely on a level surface, and have met all the requirements of the Association.

Note: This will also change GR-030-E (sent to Show Rules) and the Standard of Perfection

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We are URGING EVERYONE that is opposed to this new measuring change, to email your director(s)!

We ARE being heard!

And we are being told to keep the heat on! We need all the help we can get if we are to succeed with this! So, we are urging you to write to your directors! Tell them what you don't agree with. State calmly your feelings. State why you feel the new measuring system will not work, or why it won't do the job as intended. Ask what plans were put in place BEFORE this new bylaw passed, to take into consideration the problems listed below.

MANY of us at all levels of the AMHA (members and board members) are VERY frustrated and we need answers! We need to keep the pressure on, and let it be known that we are NOT willing to just

, roll over and play dead. We are going to keep this very much alive , BUT, there is strength in numbers, and we need YOUR support to be heard. MAKE YOUR VOICE COUNT!!! YOU have your chance to be heard! Don't just stop with writing your Director...also, send letters to the AMHA main office, and strongly encourage the person receiving the letter, to be sure they share it with all other staff and BOD! When you go to shows, meetings etc. this year, continue to bring this up and voice your opinions. Continue to let your show management know how you feel, continue to let your directors know how you feel each and every time you see them....DON'T LET IT DIE!

Here are a few thoughts that you may want to point out to them when writing your letter...

This NEW RULE WILL ALSO CAUSE…

- All horses registered now in AMHA to have WRONG measurements on their papers.

- People guessing at where to measure, since even the professionals(vets, etc.) don't seem to know!

- AMHA and AMHR horses to measure different

- Taller horses will be allowed into AMHA

and so much more confusion, Confusion CONFUSION!!!

Your letter does not have to be fancy...just write one stating how you feel. Please don't EVER feel or think that what you have to say is not important, or that you do not have the ability to compose a well-written letter. Just speak/write from your heart...it will still get your feelings across!!

PLEASE, WE NEED YOUR HELP TO MAKE THIS WORK! (YES, I am BEGGING!)

[SIZE=12pt]2008 AMHA REGIONAL DIRECTORS[/SIZE]

Current as of February 2008

REGION 1

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, & Vermont

Tom O’Connell – Vice President

18 Good Hill Terrace

Roxbury CT 06783

Phone: 860.355.8940

E-Mail: [email protected]

Laura C. Mullen

8899 Gallagher Rd

Hammondsport NY 14840-9614

Phone: 607.868.3938

E-Mail: [email protected]

REGION 2

Michigan, Ohio, & Pennsylvania

Kathy Krem Porter - Treasurer

18580 Airport Rd

Linesville PA 16424

Phone: 814.587.3788

E-Mail: [email protected]

Libby Rosen

13040 N Old 3C Rd

Sunbury OH 43074-9719

Phone: 740.965.1994

E-Mail: [email protected]

Jody Hoch

Po Box 330

Centerburg OH 43011 0330

Phone: 614.325.1483

E-Mail:

[email protected]

REGION 3

Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia & West Virginia

Mark O’ Neal

203 Mini Horse Trail

MT Airy NC 27030

Phone: 336.374.4350

E-Mail: [email protected]

Toni Reece

1763 Chance Rd

Clayton DE 19938

Phone: 302.653.2238

Cell: 302.420.5330

E-Mail: [email protected]

REGION 4

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi & Tennessee

Marilyn Gilchrist

917 NE 40th Ave

Ocala FL 34470

Phone: 352.694.2337

E-Mail: [email protected]

Tony D. Lopes

4451 148th Terrace North

Loxahatchee FL 33470

Phone: 561.798.6129

E-Mail: [email protected]

Sid Hutchcraft

2688 Grove View Dr

Winter Garden FL 34787-5476

Phone: 407.656.3109

E-Mail: [email protected]

REGION 5

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, & Wisconsin

James (Jim) Congleton

Po Box 4246

Midway KY 40347

Phone: 502.594.2268

E-Mail: [email protected]

Jana Nichols

838 E 300 North

Warsaw IN 46582

Phone: 574.268.9565

E-Mail: [email protected]

Tom Roberts

738 Pendleton Rd.

Pendleton KY 40055

Phone: 502.743.5632

Fax: 502.633.5607

E-Mail: [email protected]

REGION 6

Texas

Glen Matthews

299 FM 2570

Fairfield TX 75840

Phone: 903.389.6370

E-Mail: [email protected]

Nancy Grizzaffi

Po Box 1120

Columbus TX 78934

Phone: 979.732.3230

E-Mail: [email protected]

Mark Wilson

141 Ranger Creek Rd

Boerne TX 78006

Phone: 830.249.9176

E-Mail: [email protected]

REGION 7

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, & Wyoming

Clair Severson - Secretary

17420 203rd St E

Hastings MN 55033

Phone: 651.437.5092

E-Mail: [email protected]

REGION 8

Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon & Washington

Dave Miller

209 Beringer Ct

Eugene OR 97404

Phone: 541.688.4848

E-Mail: [email protected]

Joanne G. Ross

6100 Aumsville Hwy SE

Salem OR 97301

Phone: 503.585.3100

E-Mail: [email protected]

REGION 9

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, & Utah

Ron Scheuring

139 Garden Ave

San Rafael CA 94903

Phone: 415.492.0460

E-Mail: [email protected]

Ben Benjamin

Po Box 900

Little Rock CA 93543

Phone: 661.944.0705

E-Mail: [email protected]

Mike Want - President

Po Box 2451

Lodi CA 95241

Phone: 209.931.1594

E-Mail: [email protected]

REGION 10

Western one-half of Canada

Gerry Breckon

1620 Baldy Mtn Rd

Shawnigan Lake B.C. VOR 2W2

CANADA

Phone: 250.743.1183

E-Mail: [email protected]

REGION 11

Eastern one-half of Canada

Carole Hewetson

4041 Cty Rd 7 RR 1

Williamsburg ON KOC 2HO

CANADA

Phone: 613.448.4038

E-Mail: [email protected]

REGION 12

Oklahoma & Arkansas

Frank Lupton – Director – At - Large

6804 Acorn Dr

Oklahoma City OK 73151

Phone: 405.771.3996

E-Mail: [email protected]

REGION 13

Colorado, Kansas, & New Mexico

Larry Elniff

9736 West Lake Rd

Ozawkie KS 66070-4033

Phone: 785.876.2216

E-Mail: [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL HONORARY DIRECTORS

AUSTRALIA

Russell Blinkhorn

1089 Moore Creek Rd

Tamworth NSW 2340

AUSTRALIA

Phone: 61.26.767.1190

E-Mail: [email protected]

Sue Dearing

Yantaring Park

Po Box 49

Springton SA 5235

AUSTRALIA

Phone: 088.568.2098

E-Mail: [email protected]

Jan O’Keefe

853 Delaney Creek Rd

Mt Delaney Qld 4514

AUSTRALIA

E-Mail: [email protected]

DENMARK

Vinni Bruhn

Kielsgaardsvej 35

Ry Dk 8680

DENMARK

Phone: 011.458.689.2939

E-Mail: [email protected]

ENGLAND

Mrs. Jillian Robinson

Calf Fallow LN Norton

Stockton ON Tees TS2O 1PQ

ENGLAND

Phone: 001.64.253.4544

E-Mail: [email protected]

FRANCE

Agnes Moitry

Soulian Chemin De St Gens

84800 Saumane

FRANCE

Phone: 3316.020.2666

E-Mail: [email protected]

GERMANY

Cornelia Steinbrecher

Kirchenstrasse 19

Brannenburg 83098

GERMANY

Phone: 4.908.034.1001

E-Mail: [email protected]

NEW ZEALAND

Michael Goodwin

Myross Bush RD 2

Invercargill Southld 95210

NEW ZEALAND

Phone: 643.230.4666

E-Mail: [email protected]

Sharon Neville

69 McGiven Dr Rd 1

New Plymouth

NEW ZEALAND

Phone: 646.753.4647

E-Mail: [email protected]

SPAIN

Angel Pons

Glorieta Ruben Drio N 4

28101 Madrid Spain

EUROPE

E-Mail: [email protected]

The NETHERLANDS

Ben Van de Wetering

Peelstraat 15

5427 EG BOE KEL

NETHERLAND

Phone: 041336.9386

E-Mail: [email protected]

Tineke Varkevisser

Klein Moorst 14

Woudenberg 3931

NETHERLAND

Phone: 0342452539

E-Mail: [email protected]

 

[Leeana]

Would we need to be an AMHA member to write? I did not renew my 2008 membership this year, but it still affects all of us as a while and i feel strongly about this as well.

Thank you Mona!

Leeana

 

[Buckskin gal]

Mona, I think some members of AMHA are unsure of what the change was. Would you please put in the change exactly as it has been set up and also the way it was before. I thought I understood that the measuring was still, basically, at the last hairs of the mane and was just more or less including the bottom of the withers for a solid point.....sure would like to know for sure and it needs to be known so we know what we are talking about t5o the directors. Thanks, Mary

 

[Marty]

Thank you Mona.

Over the weekend someone inquired about a mare I have for sale. They asked me

how tall she was. I told them I have no idea anymore because apparently she just

shrank 2 inches with the new measuring system. We got out the stick out of the tackroom

and I really didn't know what to do with it---

but I know what I would have liked to do with it.

 

[maestoso]

Many people state that the old way of measuring caused problems/cheating/inconsistent etc. So people didn't want that..... So it seems like people DO want a change but don't like the change that was made. I just want to point out that no matter what we change it to, we are STILL going to have all of those problems. Changing anything mean that official measurements on paper will change, in some cases it will mean that taller horses are allowed in, in some cases it will mean people may be confused as to where to measure, all the problems you listed, will still be a problem. I am not sure where AMHR measures, is it the last hair on the mane? If so, by changing, we will still be different then the. Besides that, I don't consider "Because that's the way they do it" as a valid reason, weather referring to AMHR or large horse breeds.

I am not opposed to a change, I don't care where I have to measure as long as the bylaw is clear and consistent. But when members finally decide where they would like to measure and are satisfied(which in my opinion, widespread satisfaction is unlikely) but when everyone is done writing their letters and protesting, and when you make a new proposal, and if it passes, what are your plans for solving all these problems that are STILL going to exist?

There will always be problems and cheaters, no matter what. Again, I am not opposed to measuring at the top of the withers (like everyone else does) but that will not eliminate the problems. And to think that we can establish a fair "grandfather" system for those that measure over with a new measuring system seems a bit ridiculous to me. If you want to make the change, make it. But it should mean then it is made and done with, sorry for those horses that will now measure over but you're out. Grandfathering horses won't just last a couple years and then there won't be a problem..... Some mares and stallions produce well into their twenties, so we would still be dealing with the issue a couple decades down the road.....

 

[nootka]

The only simple answer is the withers. This is far less prone to problems than any other option, IMO.

The first and foremost being that it is the standard way of measuring horses for as far back as I can determine. It is the least affected by leg position, head position, etc. etc.

I will be writing, don't doubt that.

The only reason I am protesting this change is that it makes even less sense than the current one, which I have never been a fan of.

Thank you, Mona, for doing all of this work. I have no problem with taller horses being let into the AMHA, but lets have an honest and accurate accounting of such.

I don't think any grandfathering would be necessary, merely an adjustment of our "tallest acceptable height" which would be more honest than anything we've had in the past. I personally know of horses that are inches over that still have papers that say they are under 34".

There's big money at stake, though, and one has to wonder what they do when so many of the offspring go over. Guess there will be no height guarantees, there, at least not ones favorable to the customer.

Again, thanks for the information to make it easy for us.

Liz

 

[sedeh]

Mona, thank you so much for getting this list together. I'm emailing right now! Will follow up with a letter also.

 

[Margo_C-T]

My thanks, too, to Mona for posting this list! There are a number of us working on gathering information and trying to develop proposals, believe me. But 'job one', for ANY of you who have expressed dismay,publicly OR privately, at the recent change of measurement site, or even with other issues(like there being no provision for online or absentee voting),is to contact those in power in the organization with your concerns!! It is SO important to understand that although venting about it here may make us feel better, it will not have ANY chance to bring about change! For your voice to be heard, you MUST let those 'in power' in the organization know of your concerns! I have emailed EVERY AMHA director, and the international Directors---those who have responded(and I did not request a response,as I understand that they are volunteers in these positions, and, like us, have lives, and jobs, and time is precious!) I HAVE received responses from some,even so, and though they are private between them and me, I CAN say that EVERY one has expressed appreciation to me for making the effort to write... I've been 'reading up, and those who know about sontacting those in power to urge change, or to protest, say to keep it polite, as concise as you can,and 'on-point'--but let your voice be heard in the ONLY place it can count!

This 'new and improved'(my term and yes, said with sarcasm!)site to measure is NO improvement over the 'last hair of the mane'; it is even LESS clearly identifiable as a specific 'site'!Too, I am not the only one who has the disquieting feeling that the REAL intent of this proposal was to 'back door' patently TALLER horses into 'full legality'; they have been being allowed to show, in my opinion, due to an escalating tolerance of the cheating tactics of some--which of course, has meant more uproar from those who DON'T APPRECIATE that such cheating is occurring....more and more people demanding that 'something be done'....but the 'base of the withers' thing is, IMO, NOT going to 'fix, ANYTHING; and in fact, could well make things worse.

Oh, yes, there WILL always be those who will try to cheat--pitiful, but true-but what's the BEST way to keep it under control? STRICTLY AND EVENLY ENFORCE the rules you already have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It won't be easy, now that it has been allowed, and increasingly, for so long--it is UNQUESTIONABLY possible, but ONLY with the full and unqualified backing of the AMHA from the top down!!!!

Bottom line? This ill-thought-out change presents SEVERAL possibilities to come back and BITE AMHA...in its degree of support, the perception of its ethics, its status in the wider horse world(Miniatures ARE horses, after all!), even its hoped-for growth....to mention only a few.

WRITE! MAKE YOUR FEELINGS KNOWN! This is too big a decision for 60+ people to have made it...it is NOT irrevocable, according to my reading of the Rulebook. Yes, there are processes to follow, but that CAN BE DONE. The Rulebook is FREE to all members-it's online, or you can simply email for your OWN printed copy! DO SO, read it, become part of the solution!

(Now, out to do AM chores;I can feel the 'glares' coming through the walls..!

Margo

 

[wpsellwood]

(D) Period of Non-Amendment: A rule or regulation is not

subject to amendment by change, addition or repeal,

until it has been in force for at least two (2) calendar

years, which limitation can be waived by the Board of

Directors upon finding of exceptional circumstances

which (1) concern the safety, health, or well-being of the

horse and/or exhibitor, (2) materially benefits AMHA’s

programs or its financial stability, or (3) involves other

compelling circumstances.

 

[rabbitsfizz]

Thank you, Mona, for finding the time to do this, much appreciated.

I think the idea of e-mailing all the directors is a good one, e-mail is less intrusive than snail mail or phone calls, and this is what I shall do, I think.

I agree that this change is even more ludicrous than the present site- I also think that if were able to "win" this one it would pave the way for changing to the top of the withers, as the rest of the horse world.

ANY "breed" that is governed purely be height, especially with so many different heights within it, is always going to have problems with measuring, and is always going to have a very small percentage of people within it who seem to think the rules do not apply to them.

This is, I am afraid, just a human thing.

We have had in the past a HUGE problem with measuring our Show Ponies, ( a purely height register) and it is ongoing, in spite of their being measure by an external Board (The Joint Measuring Board) and not by the Societies involved.

This has, though , helped alleviate problems and it something the Miniature Horse societies could all look at- other horse breeds must need measuring, surly??

Would it not make more sense to have and external facility measure??

Anyway, all this is conjecture, we need to stop this rule change first, if this is possible, and go on from there.

Lunacy, sheer lunacy.......but I shan't say that in my e-mail, honest

 

[Connie P]

I thank you also Mona for putting this information together.

I will be composing a letter to send out this evening. I don't mind change either, but this isn't really making a whole lot of sense and it is confusing. If it's confusing to us "old timers" just think how confusing it will be for new mini folks just starting out.

 

[JWC sr.]

In the last few days we have measured about 20 of our adult mares and compared the results to the honest last mane hair measurement. There has been a variation of a 1/8 - 1/2" from previous recorded measurements. This could be due to a lot of things including operator error ( Me in other words)etc. OH!

I understand that AMHA was trying to find a consistent spot on the horse to measure to. Personally I would have liked to see the top of the withers, but any consistent spot would be an improvement, so as to cut out much of the measuring problems we have all seen and complained about in the past.

I for one am going to watch it for a year at the shows and also thru our own horses at the farm before I make a decision on where i stand on the issue. So far we have been able to find the notch as they call it and the new measurment spot has not caused us any problems as far mature horses being drastically off. Change is sometimes hard to deal with for old dogs such as ourselves, but for the time being I am going to try and give the new rule the benefit of the doubt.

 

[gvpalominominis]

Everyone has a right to their own opinion and these statements are not in disrepect for those who believe differently.

 


No... I am not opposed to the new measuring rule. As many others have said, there have been so many inconsistencies and complaints about the current measuring method that changing it to at least a 'part of the structure' of the horse instead of hair that can fall out, be pulled out or accidentally shaved off... I'm all for to see if it will help. Yes, I also believe the top of the wither would have been the best place in the first place... but I also can see that changing it to directly behind the wither only requires a change to the rule of 'where' to measure and not a change to the height restriction within the Standard as written.

 


I too measured all of my horses in both places...I had no problem finding that place and only 2 out of 16 measured 1/4" lower. That was because their hair didn't grow as far down their backs! Those 2 happen to be the SMALLEST horses anyway and even at the top of the withers were under 34" and right smack in the middle of their height class.

 


If opposers to the change believe its going to let taller horses in.... why do they not think that it couldn't happen with measuring at the top of the wither and making adjustments to the current Standard? Not every horse currently measuring by the last mane hair as over 34", carries a really high wither... it could just be they have a really short mane.

 


Also, if opposers believe that a behind the wither measurement will only let in taller horses, why would there be a need for any "Grandfather" clauses? Under that conception, it would only measure horses in, not out.

 


What height addition adjustment to the Standard would opposers recommend be made... 1", 2" ...? It obviously couldn't just be kept it at 34"s.... That'd mess up a few breeding programs and cause a few lawsuits I'm sure. How would "Grandfathering" horses be calculated? Talk about havic that may cause : )

 


I try to think further ahead for how this might benefit many with a possible step towards with a resolution to a problem for the future, then how a few might just happen to benefit from it with that extra 1/4" they 'might' gain.

 

 

[MountainMeadows]

What we all need to remember here is that this new rule is only going to affect a VERY, VERY small number of horses -- ONLY the ones that show. There will still be cheating going on back at the barn with people who are not willing to admit that their horse is over 34", BUT IT STILL WAS PRODUCED BY 2 AMHA REGISTERED PARENTS. There are a few people who have turned in the papers on these horses -- but they are very few! Kudos to those people, I believe that anyone who turned in papers for a horse that was over by the past measuring standard, but legal by the new one should have the right to have their papers reinstated for only the cost of the original Temp to Perm, and that all resulting offspring should also have AMHA papers made available to them if they measure legally.

Until we have a method of measuring ALL our horses that are going permanent with AMHA certified Stewards or other Certified Measurers we will not get a handle on the "height problem" - again, the new rule only affects the horses being shown. So, as much as we might want to "fix the problem" - will it really be fixed? No matter WHERE we measure -- I don't think so - not until we start back at the barn and in the field with measuring all those horses and getting accurate heights on them.

I have a horse that is a borderline horse - can measure over 34", can measure under 34". As many know, I have gone thru a lot this past couple of years with this horse - what most don't know it that this horse's parentage is AMHA - his sire and dam DID go over AMHA's 34" height - so their papers were pulled and offspring from these horses are AMHR registered until eligible for Hardship - there were many, many people who "counseled" me on NOT pulling the AMHA papers because "everyone did it that way, and noone would ever know unless you show!" Well, you all know the story, I pulled the AMHA papers of my horses sire, showed this stallion and he went 2X National Grand in AMHR - his resulting offspring were AMHR only until they were eligible to be Hardshpped into AMHA - which I have done on a couple of occasions.

My point -- I didn't HAVE TO turn in the papers to begin with - I lost 5 years of breeding AMHA horses with my stallion and believe me that was difficult to do. As the individual who was harrassed again and again, asked to have my horse PULLED OUT OF THE PASTURE (he was not showing)to be remeasured for a protest of his height -- when I could have played by the "rules of my counsel" and never gone down that path at all. This of course really steams me, that the hipocrites who are "gunning" for a certain horse - can maintain a smirk on their faces and keep breeding these over 34" AMHA horses back in their pastures and as long as they never hit the show ring are completely untouchable.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I favor the new rule - not for the "horse that is in question" - but primarily for those who are interested in breeding miniature horses that have a Performance goal in their future -- more & more large horse people are becomming interested in miniatures - and they want to DO something with their horses - not just look at lawn art. They want the same feeling from their minis as they get from their full-size counterparts -- that is pretty difficult to achieve without a wither & upright neckset to help allow the forearm to lift. The direction of the Performance show ring is extremely competitive, but it is also making huge strides in ability - this is due mainly to those breeders who are actively breeding Performance type horses - and breeding the wither back into our breed!

I personally feel that those at the meeting have a lot invested in their herds, probably a lot more than most of us. They are looking to the future to ensure that we will be breeding horses that are respected, valued and wanted by the future buyers - it is their foresight that will be the saving of our breed IMO - otherwise we will remain stagnant, probably continue to buy and resell to each other and the likelihood of attracting new people in the masses that we have in the past will become slim.

Cheaters will cheat - that is not going to stop - but let's look to the future of our breed and the possibilities that we have and go forward COLLECTIVELY to create miniature horses that not only look like full size horses, but also are capable of moving like them too. I respect those that are trying to breed THE MOST PERFECT & SMALLEST HORSE, but please, there are many out there who are also trying to breed a miniature that has purpose and those people should not be governed by the few who are not interested in that direction -- there is certainly room for all.

Thank you,

Stacy

 

[wpsellwood]

I would like to thank Mona for composing the list of directors. I know it took a long time. It took forever just to copy and paste it to the email. Im not opposed to the new rule and emailed stating that.

 

[Southern_Heart]

I for one am going to watch it for a year at the shows and also thru our own horses at the farm before I make a decision on where i stand on the issue. So far we have been able to find the notch as they call it and the new measurment spot has not caused us any problems as far mature horses being drastically off. Change is sometimes hard to deal with for old dogs such as ourselves, but for the time being I am going to try and give the new rule the benefit of the doubt.

I have to agree with the above statement and also I measured my horses and I don't see that much of a difference. I will also give the new rule a chance. My opinion may not be the same as others but at least its my opinion! Change can be good!

 

[Equuisize]

I've sent this on to a few people I know that have AMHA horses that do not

participate on the Forum and may not be up to date on this discussion.

I like for people to be able to make informed decisions.........

This doesn't affect me personally, as all my horses are AMHR.

My stallion comes from the same bloodlines as Stacy refers to above,

We accepted, at his purchase, that he was not going to be AMHA registered,

because of the height of his parents..... But that was fine with us, even

though he's only 29" tall......

I handled this whole height issue in my own way. I come from a big horse

background. My minis are all measured in the traditional way when they go

permanent.

Someday down the long road, if I had to sell my kids then someone will be

getting shorter horses than stated by the current method of measuring.

It's the only thing that makes sense to me and the accepted method by

either registry seems just a game to me.......maybe that doesn't make me a

good mini person but I'm standing for my own convictions.

 

[HGFarm]

Mountain Meadows, how can you say this will ONLY affect the ones that show?? That shows that this new rule is quite biased then?? Again, I personally dont care where they decide to measure, I just want the what ever rule is in place to be ENFORCED- correctly. So it's ok for the ones that show to be bigger, but not the ones folks breed with, or use for other things?

What about the horses out there that COULD have been used for breeding that were 34.25 or 34.5 that would have measured in for BREEDING STOCK??? Are they not 'qualified' or allowed in? What about the ones who would like to participate in other activities associated as an AMHA registered horse?

There are a LOT of things out there to participate in besides shows, in fact, I bet a VERY small percentage of Mini owners actually show...so this rule will only apply to those people and no one else?? Oh, I hope not!!!

In regards to the rule allowing a bunch of 'bigger horses in' - how much bigger? Depends on how much the rule would be enforced and how much those horses are being stretched, spraddle legged, scrunched and wrinkled to get measured in... still.

This must be a FAIR rule, and across the board.... regardless of what rule is passed!!

 

[Heart L Ranch]

I just completed the AMHA Measuring clinic. We measured different horses and I don't know about the rest in the class, but I had some difficulity in finding that dip, divot or whatever you want to call it where the back meets wither. I think that this method is as subjective as the last hair. I am all for change but I don't think this new way is the answer either...

JMO

~Lori~

 

[Margo_C-T]

I have read Stacy's (Mountain Meadows) post, and agree with most of her well-stated points! I respect her immensely for her uprightness in turning in some AMHA papers, as she noted; it is quite true, I believe, that a relative VERY few do! She also makes a VERY valid point about the numbers of horses back in the pastures at home; almost anyone who has been 'out and about', has most likely seen for themself, and it goes 'way back. (Some of you may not know that there actually was a proposal put forward, and the subject of a lengthy discussion, to send someone 'official' to measure EVERY adult AMHA miniature, at EVERY farm, at the National convention in Las Vegas in, I believe, 1986...I was there, saw and heard it, remember at least one major proponent...it was never 'heard from' again, however.) And no, it is not right for 'rules' to in actuality only be applied to horses that 'show up' at shows!!

That said, I firmly believe that 'maneuvering' the 'official' measurement location to one even more subjective---since the 'notch' can't be seen, I can ASSURE you that it will be entirely possible to 'adjust' 'which 'notch' is THE 'notch', forward or backward along the vertebral column...will NOT ultimately be beneficial to the breed or the AMHA. I don't care if AMHA wants to decide to allow a height increase--but FIRMLY believe it should not be through this sort of machination, while claiming it is to 'stop cheating', or 'make measurement easier' or....???---while at the same time carrying on the hypocritical pretense that the original standard hasn't changed. I perfectly understand about wanting miniature horses to have the conformation and 'leg' to be better movers; I AM a performance horse person, coming from riding everything from trail to reining to barrel and pole horses to cutting horses to 'real' cow horses in 'real' cattle-working situations(and you haven't LIVED until you have ridden a good mule to gather goats off the side of a STEEP mountain!)--and then, driving-training my own-since l985: but if AMHA wants to allow these 'better performance prospect' horses in, well, be honest about it, then, JUST DO IT! I know--AMHA and AMHR like to treat each other like 'He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named', in childish manner, but bottom line, opening up a larger division while keeping the original one, surely hasn't hurt membership, registration and show participation in AMHR(and I do NOT say that as a big 'AMHR' partisan, which I am NOT-- simply as fact.)

Stacy's post is actually one of the best arguments I've ever read in favor of instituting a 'breeding stock'('appendix', etc--whatever you want to call it) division in AMHA, where horses that 'grew over' the oft-stated standard of 'not over 34"), could move into so as to still be eligible to produce AMHA-registerable offspring! The good idea of Foundation Stock should NEVER have been ended, IMO.

Margo