Pony Height Check Uproar Article

[poltroon]

[QUOTE=M. Owen;7828102]
Kestrel’s suggestions sounded quite achievable, IMO. With regard to the expense of a microchip, how much are they for a horse? My dog’s was only $35, done at a normal appointment. Even if they cost $100 for a horse, that is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of showing.[/QUOTE]

I believe it’s around $100.

It’s not actually a drop in the bucket when you’re talking about a first show, because you’re already looking at:

• membership fees for every association (Easily $150 or more)
• horse registration
• cost of the pony card, if it’s a pony

If it’s really a first show, there may be clothes for the rider too.

For those of you regularly traveling the A circuit, this isn’t a big deal. But the rules you make, if you are not careful, apply also to the little C level show that might be a family’s first step in the USEF ring, with a horse they don’t own, and suddenly it’s $1000 in outlay before they’ve even looked at the entry fees, the hauling fee, and the rest. If you’re a parent, you’re starting to think of all the other fun things you can do with that $1000 instead.

Every time we add these barriers to entry, a few more people never take that first step, and it lowers the critical mass of people who have been to horse shows and who enjoy going to them. Which in turn lowers the critical mass and the resources for the next generation.

It doesn’t make sense for the first time kids to pay because some people trying for horse of the year or pony finals cheat. And for those people, it is a drop in the bucket. If it’s only required for the top of the line shows, you can get the tracking you want for the big money horses without creating more problems at the grassroots.

[poltroon]

[QUOTE=EAY;7828211]
I don’t think anyone is thinking of requiring them for lesson horses going to local shows. And they could also exempt them for people showing in the opportunity and other non-rated divisions at rated shows.[/QUOTE]

I grew up showing lesson horses at USEF rated shows.

[EAY]

[QUOTE=poltroon;7828220]
I grew up showing lesson horses at USEF rated shows.[/QUOTE]

I understood you to mean taking a lesson horse for a kid’s first show, which usually means a local one. And if a kid’s first show is a USEF one, then they can probably afford the microchip.:lol:

Plus I think they are talking about exempting horses showing in non-rated divisions, which is where most people start.

[M_Owen]

If a farm has lesson horses available for showing, shouldn’t the farm pay for the microchip? They would need to anyway to support that business model.

I do, however, agree with others that microchipping should only be required for horses showing in rated divisions, as it would help control things like lying about horse’s age, height, and past experience. I think that approach would help keep things fair for the people new to showing.

[Kestrel]

I would think that any horse or pony showing in a height or age restricted division at a show that is C rated or above (or whatever the heck system they are using this week ;)) would need a chip. Unfortunately, there would be some first time riders who would have to pay, but I bet that nearly all stables who offer showable school horses are going to get theirs chipped as a selling point for clients to start showing. Points accrue with shows at that level, so if we’re going to try to remove the cheats, I think that’s where it needs to start. There are local series and schooling shows, and I don’t think that it would necessarily be needed there.

Last time I asked my vet, it was $35 to chip a horse, not including farm call. Mine came with one, so I haven’t asked in the last two years so it may be more now. I bet the price will go up if it’s required, so it may be cost effective to do it now.

[Madeline]

I don’t understand the objection to a ONE TIME fee of $35-100 to catch cheaters. I also don’t understand all the hand-wringing about how inconvenient and/or difficult/impossible it would be to correctly measure a large number of ponies, with the goal of catching cheaters. That the difference of 1-2" in height has no actual correlation with stride length is irrelevant. The line is 14.2, the rule is “No taller than this.”

I maintain that those who are objecting to strict enforcement of this rule are misguided (and cheating). After all, the children that benefit from this lax enforcement may grow up to senators and representatives. We wouldn’t want to instill cheating in them too early, would we?

[ynl063w]

[QUOTE=Madeline;7829361]
I don’t understand the objection to a ONE TIME fee of $35-100 to catch cheaters. I also don’t understand all the hand-wringing about how inconvenient and/or difficult/impossible it would be to correctly measure a large number of ponies, with the goal of catching cheaters. That the difference of 1-2" in height has no actual correlation with stride length is irrelevant. The line is 14.2, the rule is “No taller than this.”[/QUOTE]

Your post makes it sound like the stewards should be dressed like the wicked witch of the west, waving the measuring stick in the air screaming, “I’ll get you my pretty. And your little pony too!”. Or not so little pony, as the case may be. The goal should be to get an accurate measure of every equine showing in height-restricted divisions. The stewards doing the measuring should not be out to “catch the cheaters”. If they just do their jobs, the ponies (and horses) that aren’t currently showing in the correct division will be identified. The current system certainly is in need of an overhaul, but why create so much drama around it?

[Miss_Anne_Thrope]

I’m not sure why this thread caught my attention, but before I ask what may be a stupid question, understand that I don’t know anything about the hunter/jumper world (just popped over from dressage for a quick visit).

So, here’s my question. I am wondering whether it’s possible to have a different type of measuring system altogether, one that would not be affected by foot trim or height of withers. What about measuring a horse’s legs? Say, from the coronet band to the elbow?

[findeight]

[QUOTE=Miss Anne Thrope;7829461]
I’m not sure why this thread caught my attention, but before I ask what may be a stupid question, understand that I don’t know anything about the hunter/jumper world (just popped over from dressage for a quick visit).

So, here’s my question. I am wondering whether it’s possible to have a different type of measuring system altogether, one that would not be affected by foot trim or height of withers. What about measuring a horse’s legs? Say, from the coronet band to the elbow?[/QUOTE]

Too much variation in individual conformation…we are talking as little as 1/8th of an inch here. Coronet band to elbow, the " string test" measurement can be off more then that yet still be ballpark equal to elbow to wither.

But we are talking about revamping the measurement procedure as it has stood forever. Subtracting for shoes instead of pulling and, maybe, replacing the centuries old stick and level with some post 18th century technology.

[vxf111]

A one-time charge $100* for something that could get you back a stolen/lost horse, save his life/health by allowing you to track down prior owners and his veterinary history, and/or save a horse’s life from slaughter years and years after you own him. Are we really dickering about that? You might as well argue that vaccinations are just piling on because some shows require proof of them and the cost might freeze out beginning show folks.

Look, I am sensitive to the costs of showing and I don’t want to discourage people. But a one time fee for something as valuable and useful as a microchip-- if you can’t afford $100 for something that might save your horse down the line but you can afford a hunt coat-- something’s wrong with your priorities.

Sit out one division and spend the money on the chip. babysit 2 weekends and earn the money for the chip. Seriously, it’s worth $100 and then some.

*I double checked with my vet and she doesn’t charge anywhere close to $100 for a chip. I suspect the cost is lower than the $100 quoted and/or customers can shop around for a lower price-- but for the sake of argument I maintain that $100 is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of even low level sporadic showing and horsekeeping AND it’s a small amount to pay for all the value the chip offers.

[EAY]

@vxf111;7829776

A one-time charge $100* for something that could get you back a stolen/lost horse, save his life/health by allowing you to track down prior owners and his veterinary history, and/or save a horse’s life from slaughter years and years after you own him. Are we really dickering about that?

This. I know a TB breeder who got a call from a group who had rescued a broodmare that she had bred years before. By some kind of miracle they could still read the tattoo and were able to track her down. The mare is now living out her final days on the farm where she was born. A microchip would make this kind of identification so much easier.