For the numbers I posted, that isn’t relevant at all - the numbers I posted are based on USDF HOTY qualifying riders - the rules for national levels have always been at least 8 rides/4 judges/4 shows at least 2 rides at the highest test. I don’t think that would make a difference unless we were looking at a single test…
There use to be 4 tests at all the USEF/AHSA levels (through 4th), so Test one was a bit easier at some levels. Heck, you didn’t need a flying change at 3rd 1! But you still had to ride 3rd in a snaffle. There have been a lot of remixes of the tests over the years - for a while, you HAD to sit the trot at First level, INCLUDING one of the lengthenings in First-4. But
I really don’t think that is what is causing the numbers to drop. I believe the sport is getting too exclusive - you use to be able to be pretty competitive on a regular horse. The two biggest factors I see that started the big decline - the recession AND (before the recession), the greater emphasis on the quality of the gaits in every single movement. Which essentially meant fancy horse had a major advantage, instead of just getting a few bonus points in the collectives at the end of the test. That made it a rich man’s sport. Especially since fancy horse often means full training. THEN along came the recession, and people started to seriously review where they were spending money, and voila, membership dropped, show entries dropped, because that was an easy place to cut the budget. Then the economy recovered - but many of those grass roots riders said - what was I getting for my money? And they didn’t come back… That is my own synopsis of what happened - fwiw…
This is one example of why analysis done on data other than actual membership numbers from USDF is not compelling. Granted, I’m someone who couldn’t do simple arithmetic earlier in the week, but I digress.
One of the things I’ve heard about the GMO membership for CDS, 1319 recorded members per the USDF website, is that many of the members don’t show. My own experience at the CDS annual show / Region 7 Championships, both at the northern and southern locations, is that while pretty big they still didn’t have anything close to even half the membership entered as individual riders. The PSG class for some reason is always massive (25 in the open, 12 in the AA)!
Given those two anecdotes, not to be confused with data, I suspect that the numbers you posted are not representative of actual membership. If this lack of showing membership is true for CDS, the largest single GMO, then it’s not entirely unreasonable to extrapolate that the same is true to some degree for other GMOs.
For every trainer showing a client’s horse, both the trainer and the owner need to be members to be eligible for awards, so there’s an argument to double at least some of the “members” associated with HOY rides in the open division; I suspect the majority.
All that said, there is clearly some correlation between membership and showing by definition (who other than members show in HOY qualifying rides), but determining a causal relationship between the number of show entries and anything is pretty sporty when you aren’t looking at a robust and accurate dataset.
We have the 2019 USDF Member Guide with a statement about “nearly 30,000 members.” For talking purposes, let’s assume that “nearly 30,000 members” is about 28,000.
So doing the math (36-28)/36=.0.222 or a 22% drop in membership in 22 years…or about 1% per year.
MOR’s data shows a big drop in riders showing.
The point is that the trends show that dressage membership and showing seems to be going down. It would be interesting to see if there is a GMO with numbers that are increasing.
I’m actually surprised that the numbers have gone down since dressage is so much higher profile than when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s in PNW and five people did dressage haha I really do think more people are doing dressage, but not showing, or not showing recognized, and honestly I’m fine with that because I don’t want to give USDF anymore money either :lol: it’s not great for developing a wider pool of talent for our teams, but honestly, I don’t care too much about that…and clearly neither does our national federation :lol::lol:
I’m not surprised by the numbers, nor surprised that the USDF ignores it. There have been plenty of threads to reflect why people are not showing or only doing local and why USDF numbers are dropping.
I quit the USDF in 2000, didn’t like how they treated AAs, never belonged to a GMO as there were none within reach of where I lived. My last horse show was in 1995(!), don’t have a desire to show.
I didn’t leave dressage, I just happily ride it in my own little arena at home.
STRIDE Dressage in Ocala FL is three times the size it was in the late 90’s. I do not have actual numbers - our database was lost this year (long ugly story). However, remember when we had barely 75 members; this year we will have more than 200.
How? We invited the driven dressage community and the western dressage community to join us and we support them in our schooling shows and clinics. Dressage is dressage - every horse benefits. Our shows, once held at local farms and having one arena, now regularly use two arenas for ridden tests and a driving arena…
ANd yes we have members who show recognized shows in all those disciplines.
I get the distinct impression that as long as our high performance competitors continue to have the level of success they’ve been having, USDF doesn’t care if they lose the vast majority of their First Level ammies.
Our GMO is doing well! And I think the reason is that many people are just getting tired of the outrageous costs of rated shows. Yes some of our members show also in rated shows but many don’t… I think our number of members have been pretty constant over the years… and we offer western dressage and tests for gaited horses at our shows…
Does anyone remember if there was always a 60% minimum median score to be ranked for horse of the year? I vaguely remember that it might have been 55% at one point, if it existed at all? While I agree with the general impression that there has been shrinking at the lower levels showing recognized, the drop off is so dramatic I have to think there is something systematic - a rule change like a bottom cut off for the ranking lists, or if group members (not PMs) also used to be ranked. Like mentioned upthread, I also think it’s always been 4 shows/8 rides for scores so I don’t think that’s it. Is there one year it drops off much more sharply?
I also agree that the horse of the year ranking #s is not a great proxy for total membership numbers, but I think it’s actually a decent metric for how actively members are showing.
I think it was 58% in the past. I can’t remember it ever being 55% - but then I only go back to the 90s… The 58% was really more of an issue in All Breeds…
I belong to a small CDS Norcal chapter now, but for 10 plus years was part of Ventura Chapter in Socal…from being a working student, to instructor/trainer, barn manager to regular office employee I have done a range of possible ways to be involved in dressage. Here’s what I see: as the demographic ages there are health issues( even as simple as not being strong enough which creates fear problems in the rider), money issues (wanting nicer horse but not being able to afford it, much less board/training/instruction/shows are last…with retirement finances looming on top of that) and finally exhaustion…many of those members have been constant for decades in the horse world even if not showing and eventually everyone gets tired. I agree that more people are using schooling/local shows to get their horse out, I have my bronze and half my silver so my goal for competition is to go forward with that, not show the lower levels per se so I am not spending my limited funds there.
What I love about dressage is that for me it IS a huge commitment and requires that I give almost everything in order to progress. I am willing to pay in time, money, and effort because its my avocation. I have a tight budget and the horse comes first. I see dressage just like wanting to be a prima ballerina, or an Olympic athlete in any sport, or a top musician…if you want to be really good you have to throw everything you have at it. It is “not a gentle hobby, to be picked up and laid down like a game of solitaire. It is a grand passion. It seizes a person whole and once it has done so, he/she will have to accept that his life will be radically changed.” (Emerson)
Most people just “want” but they don’t sit down and figure out the cost of that “want”. Even if they acknowledge the cost, they whine that its not fair, its too much, etc. They are not willing to pay. I have always found it ironic that people have children without figuring the “cost” of them, and I don’t mean just the money. I see so many children without attentive parents actively trying to develop that child to be the best human being they can be. Anyway, I have always lived by the thought that if you want it bad enough you make it happen and as we age, wanting it badly enough declines. There is also a human failing, lack of self awareness and/or lack of a coach/friend who can make you aware of what you need to change to be successful. People in general don’t want to make the effort to change, they want that “pill” that makes the miracle happen.
I disagree with your second statement because to make the HOY list, an actively showing member at T-4th needs to earn eight scores at four different shows at the same level, to be ranked for the regular tests (freestyles require fewer, for FEI classes it’s 4/4).
That’s leaving out a lot of people out of the count who are doing several recognized competitions per season, yet are showing at two levels in one season, or sharing a horse for a show or two, or doing one level plus a Freestyle.
Actually, these numbers are quite useful because there IS a correlation between membership and showing. And more importantly, there is a huge relationship between decline in the sport (and in revenue) and showing. We hear from many that their shows are suffering - these numbers illustrate that yes, show numbers are declining.
AND because there is direct discussion with people who are NOT showing - they appear to be dropping out at higher/faster rates because of a (perceived?) lack of value with the memberships. I judge a lot of schooling shows and see more and more people at those events in both lower level dressage and western dressage - the schooling shows are often over-subscribed now. And cowboy dressage is also a rapidly growing discipline - and there are quite a few in that group that are converts from classical dressage. Working equitation hasn’t caught on in great numbers in my area yet, but I also hear from other areas that it is another place people are going to from our sport. We need real NUMBERS, but I see the pattern. And perhaps because of my many years as a schooling show judge (L), I am more aware of it.
It would be SUPER helpful to have the actual membership numbers for the history too - and run a correlation between those who are members and those who qualify for HOTY (which is a good representation of numbers showing). Would be easy to run a graph with two lines - membership line over time, HOTY qualifying rides 1st - 4th, and HOTY qualifying rides FEI over time. Three lines on a graph, I would love to see what it looks like! Gives an idea of whether membership and SHOWING membership patterns are changing. If I had to guess, I would say yes, there is a lowering percentage of non-showing members - but that is just my guess based on what I hear from people in the dressage community.
The Annual show is a championship show - it is NOT a direct reflection of all who are showing, or of membership, it is a reflection of the “higher end” of membership, especially in more recent years. Almost everyone in that Annual show is in full training or is a trainer, has a fancier horse - it is not the demographics of total membership, but it IS the demographics of the membership that USDF and CDS are most supportive of - those with more money, nicer horses, in full training. Generally, the show has around 325 to 350 horses, yes (although the 2018 show was smaller, perhaps related to the bad publicity that went on in our region over the qualifying rules)? And generally, it is about 1/3 traveling from “out of the area” and about 2/3 that are “in the area” (aka North and South).
The fact that our show is so big (it is one of the bigger regional championship shows in the US - often 2nd or 3rd largest), is partly reflective of our region - which is overall higher income, higher access to training then many other regions.
If you went back 20 years, you’d see a different show - it was heavily stacked at Training and First Level in AA division, and 3rd and PSG were not so big in those divisions. And you’d see a lot of people who were not in a full training program - there were grass roots riders heavily represented in the mix. My first Championship show was 1999, and there were 37 horses and riders at First Level AA. I was on a MORGAN, and we top 10! The show was about the same size - historically (2000 - 2017), it has always been around 325 to 350 horses and 900 to 950 rides, but it leaned more toward the lower levels. Seeing a lower level rider on a Schoolmaster was pretty rare back then.
The numbers I posted are data - not membership data, but a corollary set of data that represents competitors. And it is as accurate as the USDF yearbook is - I can’t guarantee they reported accurate numbers, but I copied those numbers carefully I absolutely agree, the data I posted is NOT membership numbers, and I didn’t claim they were, but it is relevant data when looking at the overall decline in our sport.
And our GMO is not necessarily all that representative of the total membership - we are probably closest to Region 3 (Florida), with access to training, lots of shows, and overall, we have a “wealthy” region, especially in the south, which means fancier horses and even better training. But our GMO has been bemoaning membership drop too. And my own experience shows that much of that drop is the people who have given up on showing (at rated shows) because their horses were not fancy enough, because they could not afford a full training program, because they got discouraged by negative feedback on their non-warmblood horses. Again, I have a unique insight there because of my many years judging schooling shows in Nor-Cal (and of course being highly involved in my chapter of the GMO, as a scribe, and as a volunteer over the years).
Part of the issue, of course, is the huge size of this country - making it hard to define a “normal”. So it seems TPTB have decided that the group they want to serve is a very specific group of horses and riders - and that leaves out a huge swath of membership.
We need more numbers to do a reasonable analysis of what is going on. I have NO idea of anyone at USDF or CDS is doing such an analysis - my experience has been, numbers people don’t tend to be involved at the higher levels in our organizations. I sure don’t HEAR any information coming out to us - just “numbers are dropping, we need more money to make up for it”.
I do agree - it also leaves out anyone who is not a PM! But it is a reasonable set of numbers to analyze. We would have to make the assumption that there is a steady pattern of those outliers every year. I realize assumptions are not always accurate. I don’t know if USDF keeps historical show participation numbers, so these are a reasonable proxy representing people who show.
I am afraid you may be right. BUT… They need our income - membership fees and show fees coming in. AND they need our volunteer hours. And they need our numbers to justify sponsorships. And many of those high performance riders need our money too - as students, as clients. So if they lose that core membership, they lose our money and our manpower. And I think USDF must be aware that they can’t afford to lose that?
The TL AA Championship class at Region 3 this year ran to more than one page on the day sheet. And these are the folks who QUALIFIED, not everyone who showed all year. Likewise the First level AA CH class I dispute that TL and First level riders are not showing, at least in this region. See pages 20 and 41… https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/2c3c2b_cd6722bad98442a6a3f36f24b0890111.pdf
I did say in my post that there is a correlation between membership and showing. I would characterize that correlation as it being an extremely high probability that anyone showing is a USDF member. I don’t think we can conclude that someone is NOT a member because they do not show and offered a couple of examples of that point.
I agree that statistically significant valid data is key to any compelling analysis, but I’ve lost lock on the question folks are trying to answer. I think it’s something along the lines of : Are declining show entries the result of declining membership? If so, that strikes me as akin to the assertion that more pedestrians are killed in crosswalks than jaywalking which makes sense to me because I believe there are more pedestrians in crosswalks to start with.
Anyway, I think the main complaint is that “grass-roots” riders do not believe that USDF does enough for them, hence the assertion that people are not remaining members and this data collection and analysis is intended to generate supporting evidence for that assertion with a goal of presenting compelling motivation to change perceived USDF behavior.
As to the extent to which any level of data analytics is being done at USDF; I have no idea.
There is no question that membership is declining. I’d like some analysis of the decline to help define why it is declining. Which ties into showing, levels shown, those not showing, AND types of members (AA, Open, Jr/YR) over the years. Also educational opportunities available to various groups. Watching long term trends helps us interpret what is going on and helps answer WHY.
since USDF is giving no hints on potential analysis, I would make a reasonable guess that it isn’t happening.
Unfortunately, USDF leaves it up to the GMOs to present many of the educational and training opportunities. I often hear that the GMOs are not meeting the educational needs of their AA and lower level /non-showing members. Here in FL I know of two new GMOs that split off other GMOs for just that reason. Additionally, the USDF grants are only available to GMOs, but TDF offer MANY educational and training grants - some have no applicants in some regions!!! Many GMO members and PMs as are not aware of the educational materials available on the USDF web page.
I’d love to hear suggestions as to what type of education or activities are desired……
Note there is a nascent movement to create another type of class at shows, for AAs only, that would permit posting the trot through 3rd or 4th level… being pushed by an S judge. WOuld not qualify for any awards… It will be discussed further at the next convention.
I absolutely agree, the data I posted is NOT membership numbers, and I didn’t claim they were, but it is relevant data when looking at the overall decline in our sport.