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

[MountainMeadows]

Laurie (Heather Glen), what I was trying to say is that the ONLY place that this new "rule" will be instituted is at the SHOW RING. Otherwise, as things stand today, people will go on bringing over 34" horses perm in AMHA irregardless of their true height. Until we officially adopt a measuring standard (whatever that may be, top of withers, bottom of withers, last hair of mane) & have OFFICIAL MEASURERS measure the horse to bring it perm. Until that happens, as long as we are still relying on "honesty", so therefore there will be LOTS of breeders who continue to perm horses that are over 34".

As stated in Margot's post, this was brought up once at a National meeting - it went down in flames - WHY? Because noone wants anyone poking around their pasture measuring their horses ! ! !

To be honest, bringing the measurement to the base of the withers MIGHT just create a bit of honesty, and for all those who turned in papers that can legitimately recover them I would suggest that you write to AMHA and request that the perm papers be allowed to be reinstated at the same price as they would have been if they had not turned them in, and again, that all resulting foals from 2 AMHA registered parents also be able to be registered - the AMHA would be in a win/win situation.

Perhaps in the future we will institute a rule that has Official Measurers measuring for perm papers (probably not in my lifetime

). And at that point we can truly start working on refining our "breed" to be more than a height registry - and more of a breed that is recognized for it's TYPE vs SIZE

Stacy

 

[Mona]

Leeana, I am not sure that your voice would be heard in AMHA if you are not a member, but it can't hurt to send one anyway. The worse thing to happen, would be they toss it in the garbage.

I also want to thank Lori for sharing her experience with the measuring clinic, and the problems of not knowing where to measure. Even though the mane was subjective, we all knew where it was. Now, it seems no one can indisputably agree on where that new point of measure is!

Thanks to those for asking here and emailing to ask me to post what this is in regards to. I have added it to the original post in this thead and also posting it below....

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

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

what I was trying to say is that the ONLY place that this new "rule" will be instituted is at the SHOW RING.

And the old way of measuring was only a problem in the show ring also! So why not ENFORCE THE RULES that are already in place! Why not fix what NEEDS fixing??!! OH!

 

[McBunz]

Mary Lou summed it up just perfectly ... Fix what needs fixing (the cheating) , but do not mess with Standard of Perfection.. This is exactly what I feel about the whole situation....

 

[Margaret]

There must be alot of voices out there for this rule to have been passed.

I think it would be intresting to do a poll on this to actually see how many are for this new type of measuring- verses how many are against it.

 

[Margo_C-T]

Margaret, there were 60+ "voices", out of a total membership of around 12,000 in AMHA(less than 100--90 something-- actually were in attendance at the recent AMHA convention; it took a 2/3 majority of THOSE for this to pass. )To me, that's not a 'lot' of voices, relatively speaking. Because all of us frequent this forum, I think we tend to feel that 'most' AMHA members are also here--and I do believe that 'many' more members of BOTH registries are readers here than actually join-yet, I'd bet that a large portion of the AMHA membership has no idea this has even occurred--and, any poll(which if held, should be limited only to those directly affected by it--i.e., AMHA members, or at least, those who OWN AMHA-registered horses) is going to end up with what is likely only a very small 'sample' of those who will be affected by this action.

JMHO.

Margo