I tried to get a similar type of math over on DH yesterday.
I volunteered at a local event and got a schooling pass. Went XC schooling yesterday with trainer. Paid trailering fee and for trainer’s time ($Y), used the schooling pass ($X value). Had a glorious time.
Me to DH: “By volunteering at the show I saved us $X for a schooling fee! I’m volunteering again next month!”
DH to me: “So each time you go ‘volunteer’, we’re going to end up paying trainer $Y?”.
Darn it, he figured it out.
Maybe you’ve seen someone make it up as they go, I haven’t. They are supposed to and many do indeed have an established scale in their heads. We sure got drilled on it during the L program in the session I attended.
If you haven’t seen it, the FEI Dressage Handbook, Guidelines for Judging goes into excruciating detail of scoring criteria for gaits, dressage movements and the collective remarks, in the context of the training scale. It’s on the reading list for the L program, but anyone can buy a copy. It costs $60 and is well worth it IMO.
When you frame your complaint as being out-scored and beat by fancier horses, it does come across that way. Based on our previous exchanges, I now understand that your issue is that the tests are written and scored in a way that advantages fancier horses and does not give, in your opinion apparently, sufficient weight to training and competent riding. You want a different criteria it seems.
Just an observation.
Thanks for the tip - always looking for good things to add to the reading list. It is currently back-ordered on the USDF site so I’ll have to keep an eye out for when it becomes available.
When people vote, it’s not just for national office like president, but also for local and hyper local office like the school board. Some indication of address is needed to determine which congressional district and school district the voter is elegible to vote on.
Requiring addresses should never be used to deny voting rights, of course, but a basic use of address to determine which offices one is supposed to be voting for is obviously necessary.
It goes in the budget under Utilities. Don’t ask, don’t tell. 
So do you even know why they don’t have addresses?
probably kinda the same reason that wild horses on the range do not. ie: their parents, grandparents …ancestors, have been born and raised there and know where the landmarks are, how to get to other’s homes. And the construct of roads, addresses is irrelevant to their culture and 30 generations of ancestry.
Who is “they”? Native Americans?
Maybe reply only to posts after you know what the post is about… yes I was talking about Native Americans… I am sure you know that reservations are not really under the administration of the Native Americans. and for some reason the people who run the reservations never thought it was important to assign street addresses to the houses spread everywhere in the reservation… And of course the North Dakota Republicans used this little detail to prevent Native Americans from voting…
^ I don’t think you are right about this.
https://www.ncsl.org › research › state-tribal-institute
](https://www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/an-issue-of-sovereignty.aspx)
Tribal sovereignty refers to the right of American Indians and Alaska Natives to govern themselves. The U.S. Constitution recognizes Indian tribes as distinct governments and they have, with a few exceptions, the same powers as federal and state governments to regulate their internal affairs.
I did know who you were talking about, @Manni01.
One would not need a specific street address, only an address that specifies the reservation of residence for the “address” to fulfill the role of specifying the offices on which the person should vote, based on residence.
I asked who “they” referred to in your question because the issue of address comes up in cases other than Native Americans; homeless people for example.
Do you advocate no specification of address of any kind? So I can vote for the congressional representative in a different district than mine? Or vote in several districts?
I understand that the requirement for addresses could be used to deny voting rights and specifically said that was not OK.
https://thefulcrum.us/voting/native-american-voting-rights-2645916201 This article says Residential addresses are assigned by local governments… whatever that means…
This is why the Western Dressage Association of Canada was formed, I believe. And and according to another thread here, there is a new dressage federation with their own tests developing in the US. Not sure I’d recommend it though.
Do the more athletic movers with natural rhythm, cadence and suspension and easy engagement have an advantage? Of course they do. If your horse has “7” quality gaits, you need to execute a movement pretty flawlessly to score a 7. A horse that moves for a 9 has room to make minor errors, lose a couple of points and still score a 7. If they make a major mistake, like missing a couple of changes in a line of tempis, they are still going to get a 4, no matter how spectacular their gaits are.
dressage judge training is, I believe, very different from breed show judge training. The dressage judges I know work very hard to remove breed bias from their judging.
It would seem to me that “On the XYZ Reservation” should suffice for local districts. They have PO Boxes - those come with a location. SHould suffice.
It means that when you build a house on a newly-designated lot (for example, a divided section of an existing farm) the local Sheriffs Office gives you the street address. THis is so EMT knows where to go in case of emergency (at least thats how it works in FL. )
Maybe @Manni01 you could start a thread in current events or off topic about native Americans and voting rights? I’m sure a lot of people would be interested in the discussion, but it doesn’t belong in a dressage thread.
Thanks for you reasonable reply. No, I’ve scribed for many established r - S judges. I’ve done repeat clinics with S - I judges. I’ve talked to them about scoring and how they score. Very interesting to hear about your L program experience, thanks for sharing.
I very much disagree about Bigmama’s seemingly flippant post. I agree that my complaint is basically that one can be outscored by fancier horses with poorer rides during the test. I’ve talked about this with S and I judges and a German judge I did clinics with. I’ve talked about this with Olympians I’ve done clinics with. My experience is very likely different from yours but I’m not pulling my opinions out of my butt!
Actually, it does violate USEF rules. Not that I care- Just pointing out the error. “Offering ringside tips,” or even “suggesting changes in tack/equipment,” can be construed as an amateur violating the ammie/pro rule.
I have seen people get absolutely vicious over these rules. And, “remuneration,” can come in a multitude of forms.
Bottom line is, if an “ammie,” rider is training her horses through/up the levels & doing it successfully, with or without a coach, she is also a trainer. She doesn’t have the same freedoms a professional has, though: 1.) No advertising 2.) No money can be earned in ANY capacity in the horse industry - can’t ride a horse being prepped for sale OR that may become for sale at a later date - can’t teach lessons- can’t work in the barn managing feed, turnout, etc… nothing 3.) No sponsors (which I suppose goes hand in hand with #1.)
A fancy horse with big beautiful gaits needs a stronger rider - they’re not “push button.” For those just beginning dressage, a solid horse with a good brain is most important. Not a fancy one. Even a schoolmaster must be first “mastered,” by his rider (think lots of 20 meter circles) before trotting down Centerline EVEN at T-1. In my opinion, riders who wish to compete should become so solid in their basics before considering a “fancy,” big moving WB. Everything we do while in the saddle “trains,” our horses. It just makes the most sense to me for a rider to be as stable/strong/quick (to fix & and to reward) as humanly possible before deciding to purchase a horse that only an even stronger rider can actually ride.
But… I also think it’s good that any competitor can choose to ride as an Ammie so long as they follow the rules. Bc, once you change your status to “pro,” - you have to wait one year with letters from others confirming that you haven’t violated the “Ammie/pro,” rule during that time. FWIW - I ride as Ammie… but that doesn’t change that what I am truly doing is training my horses up the levels with the best eyes on the ground & occasional extra seat in the saddle to help me get the most desirable results. Am I trainer then? Of course! But I’m not about to ride an I-1 against (in the same classes as) Pan Am games riders or ex Olympians- or enter a small tour against the same. One day though…
So what changes do you suggest? In the example I gave above of a 7-mover executing a movement beautifully for a 7 score, and a 9-mover making minor mistakes to a score a 7, how would you like to see those two scenarios scored instead?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
