Still refuse to believe that people are going to be unable to afford to show based on a one time cost, identification for their horses. There also an argument that its going to cost the shows too much, but I truly don’t think they are going to require every horse to be scanned (I know they do at FEI’s but that hasn’t been a problem). It literally just has to go on their registration. If there is a question, the horse could be scanned, just like it could be drug tested.
3 Likes
I am in Area II.
I haven’t worn a jacket or a stock at a recognized HT since they changed the rules- at least 10 years ago. And I am definitely NOT the only one.
If you don’t have your own trailer, you are going to be “borrowing a ride”, whether you are going to a hunter show or a horse trial.
I only use boots on my horse if I have studs in her shoes (and I don’t stud until I get to Training).
AFAIK, the ONLY equipment expense specific to eventing is a safety vest. ETA nd maybe a dressage-legal bit.
5 Likes
Yes this is why I conceded my point on needing to buy a vest and other special gear for a first trip out. If you’re going to be borrowing a ride anyways, perhaps you can also use that person to help you find gear to borrow.
My other points on costs and value per minute in the ring still stand.
I don’t think that microchipping itself is the “straw that breaks the camels back”, but it is one more step for USEA in the direction of USHJA as far as costs. I used to think Eventing was generally cheaper, but I’m not entirely sure it’ll remain that way for long.
2 Likes
I don’t think you read my post in full then. I don’t think a one time cost will make people unable to show - but I am wary of the costs that add up and the many hoops newcomers are having to jump through now just to dip their toes in the water. I addressed this in the post you replied to.
4 Likes
ummm. Calm down if you do not like how I phrased it. I meant spilled by it has already been implemented in HJ USEF shows and is a new proposal for eventing. Geez.
And yes- I stand by “spilled over” when crappy trainers marketed over enthusiastic hunters or failed 1.50 horses to eventers. And then started changing the identity.
3 Likes
My objection is not how you phrased it.
My objection is that your “facts” are WRONG.
It is NOT “a new proposal for eventing”.
It is a new proposal for ALL DISCIPLINES.
And, to repeat, the NEW proposal has NOTHING to do with changing the horse’s identity (which WAS part of the motivation for the original H/J-only chip rule).
Have you READ the actual rule change proposal? I provided a link.
1 Like
We are on an eventing forum, talking about eventers and the rule change. Hence my language as to eventing.
So it extends to other disciplines. You are being argumentative.
Explaining background on how the rule first came around- or parts of it- is part of an educational discussion.
Quibbling on “IT’S ALL DISCIPLINES” is just eye roll worthy.
So you are right, it is all disciplines. Not sure anyone GAF ,except you, thought this was about it affecting EVENTING.
4 Likes
The disdain with which some have to those upset about “one more cost” is telling. When my clinician raised clinic prices by $20 due to rising full costs causing her to actually LOSE money coming to my barn EVERYONE LEFT. Not to ride with someone else as far as I can tell, but to ride with nobody at all.
9 Likes
To be fair you are telling a licensed USEF official that you’re stating things more correctly than them based on the location of this thread. (But the official might know a bit more about this than the average rider who signs up yearly and never reads even the whole section of their own discipline rules, about the whole rule, intent etc)
I don’t much “GAF” about this new rule, it’s a good idea in my mind. I would however suggest that we don’t go overboard with emotions when addressing a LONG time board member who is an official who has actively given back to our sport’s existence for multiple decades.
Em
13 Likes
So because someone is an official and has given back to the board- if they are misreading the intention of a post or nitpick on semantics- one should just not offer an explanation/ clarification? This board has gone way downhill as a discussion board and I understand why other notable members (who are officials so therefore seem to be more important than lowly competitors) have bowed out. I will, as well (but I’m just a competitor so my input is negligible anyway)
5 Likes
From a cost-benefit analysis, what are the benefits of this policy is put in place and what are the detriments?
I know there has been back and forth in the thread, but maybe make a list?
Ok so having read both of your posts I took @Janet posts as trying to correct that this wasn’t a rule for only eventing (Which is a fact) and wasn’t created for this new rule in response to falsifying ages of sale animals.
The two main premises you were on were not accurate. So if I am a board member and I see an official or anyone stating false premises, I would also likely correct you.
When the facts are skewed, it needs to be corrected.
Em
6 Likes
While the extra $XX cost of a microchip is likely not going to break the bank completely, I agree with @beowulf that it is just yet again one more thing for an entry level competitor to do. For me, my horses are microchipped already so it doesn’t directly affect me, but I still just eyeroll at the proposal for it. Sometimes, just One More Thing is enough for me to say f&*k it, I’m not doing this anymore so I can absolutely see how it would turn people off. I can see Modified and above, absolutely, fine. But for beginner novice? Give me a break.
15 Likes
What facts were skewed? It’s a fact that the original rule was made in the HJ world for the falsifying of records. That is truth and was perhaps misread by Janet. Then this was extended to all disciplines in general for several reasons. That’s also a fact and nothing that Pennywell Bay appeared to be disputing.
Since the rule change has been altered to include all recognized levels of eventing that does make it a new rule.
2 Likes
What is your reasoning that horses at modified should be microchipped, but not at beginner novice? Because those competing at modified have “already invested enough money”? Or they are “planning on doing an FEI?” It’s honestly embarrassing we have no official way of identifying such a large group of horses. Not a lot of these are registered with any sort of ‘formal’ registry requiring DNA.
1 Like
To me, it would make sense because modified is an established level (you have to MER for it) and BN is truly intended to be an introduction to the sport.
5 Likes
So all the Thoroughbreds, Quarter Horses and all the Foreign Bred Warmbloods that were nice enough to import typically DO HAVE chips and are registered with DNA on file. So which ones are you thinking of that do not?
Em
2 Likes
I was going to let this drop. but I am too stubborn.
I attended at least two webinars where the USEF staff or officials explained the proposed rules changes.
THIS rule change proposal (expanding to all disciplines) was a DIRECT result of last year’s neurological EHV1 outbreak in the West, where the microchips turned out to be crucial in determining which horses had been at shows where there were infected horses.
You can accuse he USEF of lying through their teeth, but in this case I am inclined to believe them.
If you had actually READ the rule change proposal (here is the link for a second time)
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/036-22%20(3).pdf
you would know that the proponent is the Veterinary Committee.
The Veterinary Committee is not concerned about falsifying age or performance history.
The intent of the rule change proposal is:
The accurate identification of horses is essential. At Federation Licesned Competitions, the best manner in which to identify horses is through a Federation
Horse Identification Number, which does not require recording with the Federation. During times of disease outbreak, natural disasters, theft, and to protect
> against fraud, microchipping of horses is fundamental to good horsemanship. The requirement for all horses competing at USEF licensed competitions to be
microchipped is in the interest of horse welfare. While microchipping of horses will be required, members will be encouraged to explore the use of biothermal
microchips that allow for Bluetooth connectivity for monitoring of horse temperatures
But of course, you, who apparently didn’t attend the webinars, and apparently haven’t read the actual rule change proposal, know better than I do about the USEF intentions.
14 Likes
All of those listed already require microchips. I was just also referencing another way of identifying horses.
In point of fact the original rule for Hunter/Jumper and Eq was a dual pronged reasoning.
There had been an EHV outbreak in Florida and there wasn’t an easy way to definitively know which horses were on the grounds by looking at them. Since the rule’s inception, both in the 2016 Hunter/Jumper/Eq version and now in the new standard to come for all, Bio Security is the foremost reason for this requirement. The Outbreaks in California last year were the final point and those events and the ability to track horses through those due to the chip requirement for H/J/Eq, made it a no brainer to enact globally.
The secondary purpose was to guarantee a horse was who a buyer had been told they were buying.
This is consistent in the article from around 2016 that interviews Mary Babick and discusses the implementation of the rule. (Article was edited in 2019 so the date updated with it)
The second part that was skewed was that it was made to appear that this was a new rule for Eventing when it in fact applies across all USEF disciplines in the newest updated rule. The whole “Spilled over into eventing” comment.
Em
1 Like
