Good point. Since there’s no criteria for somebody to be a pro, DH would fill in quite nicely.
I don’t think this change will have the consequences it’s intended to have.
4 Likes
I am guessing they do not technically qualify because working summer camp is likely more than 20 hours a week.
Does total lesson time only include mounted?
1 Like
I’m guessing only time teaching actual riding lessons would have to “count” …. I don’t necessarily think they’d need to include time when they’re just, say, supervising arts and crafts or snack time in the barn (although I don’t really know for sure)
2 Likes
Oh, I was thinking about actual horse related teachings that are not done in the saddle. Teaching them about tack, teaching them about grooming, teaching them about tacking up, teaching them about leading the horse, all those important things. All things beginners are taught, hopefully typically by their riding instructor when they are starting out.
There’s already an exception for amateurs to work as camp counselors as long as they are not exclusively hired for equestrian activities.
2 Likes
If I were approached to be a Horse Camp Helper, I would expect it to be for the horse part only (to include tack, grooming, etc). I’d have to cook dinner and organize arts and crafts, for this not to count? That’s wild.
When I mentioned camp I was thinking Horse Camp run at the barn or by your trainer, which technically breaks the rules, though I doubt this is the most common reason someone might lose ammy status.
These types of camps are fabulous ways to get kids interested in horses and get parents in the door, and if done right they can help fund a lesson string (camps around here bring in $$$$ and are in high demand). They don’t fit in the 20hr/wk model, and technically do not fit the Camp Counselor exemption.
3 Likes
It think it just deepens the problem we have of unqualified trainers hanging a shingle- not a good look to the general public. We’re so desperately in need of trainers that we give responsibility of the youngest and most vulnerable to amateurs? So now instead of having some sort of desperately needed certification system for trainers to prove competence we go the other way and basically throw the beginners to the wolves? Now I know in practice this will mostly be used by shamatures in bigger operations, but the public perception is not so great.
USHJA is talking out both sides of their mouth. Are you promoting your own instructor training/certification programs, or are we letting amateurs have at it with the beginner kids? Choose a lane.
17 Likes
I think this is great. I know a lot of competent amateurs that I would love to have teach the up down lessons. It clearly states only the students who are not and have not competed. At least now they can get a more solid foundation. It’s VERY hard to find people with any clue to fill these teaching positions.
4 Likes
I’m here. My gut reaction to this was, “Cool. Now Susie and Katie* will be legit.” 
*Names changed to protect the not-so-innocent Shamateurs in my circle.
14 Likes
My opinion?
Have at it for the beginner kids. The sport is way too expensive and is losing members left and right. We need to get people in the door to build that passion. It shouldn’t take a bona-fide top notch program to do this.
Just because us snobs have gotten used to seeing horses in multi million dollar facilities with footing worth more than your house, doesn’t mean that Jane Doe teaching up-downs in a Wintec in the dryest part of her pasture is suddenly some she-devil looking to hurt the children.
It would be great if kids could be given Charlotte Dujardin level training from the start but the VAST majority of families can not afford that.
17 Likes
I think the rule about the logs is there in case of a protest. I doubt anyone would randomly audit.
DIY amateurs can already help each other so long as money doesn’t change hands.
I do agree that the oversight portion of it does nothing much to fill the potential need. And I also suspect that it is really a loss of school horses that is the problem (because it doesn’t make economical sense to have them anymore). But perhaps the AA with one beginner friendly semi-retired horse could help out here to help fund the going show horse. But still then you would need students at this hypothetical show barn being overseen by head trainer who have not ever shown anywhere…even local w/t…for the entire time that AA is allowed to teach them.
2 Likes
Yep. There’s a notorious one in my area - shamelessly coaching (and riding training horses) full time and taking home Regional awards in the AAs and AOs. Looks like I’ll be seeing her in the AAs locally again - she started only showing opens within a certain radius after getting a “warning” since it was all a “misunderstanding” and “sour grapes”.
3 Likes
The other problem I have with this rule is the lack of definitions. What is a “basic beginner level” exactly? Is it decided by height of jumps? Cantering? Riding outside the ring?
10 Likes
If it’s “sour grapes” to expect everyone to follow the same rules, then my grapes are extremely sour.
13 Likes
I consider myself lucky; the two I know don’t ride well enough for me to personally care all that much. So they fall into the “unqualified trainers hanging shingles” group, which is the other problem this creates, as others have pointed out.
3 Likes
You don’t need to be jumping 3’6" to teach up downs, or a first canter.
You don’t even need to ride all that well, honestly.
Helmets and reasonably appropriate horses are the most important factors there. The fine tuning comes later, and yes it’s easier to learn perfect equitation from the start but they aren’t hurting people.
To get people in the door, lessons can’t be 90 a pop. That’s where “Suzie” can teach a 30 minute beginner lesson for 45 bucks, which is affordable to a boatload more people.
7 Likes
I don’t disagree with this at all. But there’s a middle ground here. Some sort of basic certifcation for instructors by USHJA, coupled with some kind of oversight beyond checking lesson logs when someone gets called out. Not just a free pass for a group of people who have been shamelessly violating our sport’s rules for years.
2 Likes
I think we’re all so frustrated about this because this rule change doesn’t really fix anything and just exacerbates the issues. I liked the discussion earlier in this thread about doing an open vs a restricted/limit section for each height. That would be so much more effective in fixing the “fairness” issues that always seem to come up in amateur discussions, and it would be easier for our ineffective and overwhelmed federations/associations to track. Cause, as also seen in this thread, there is a lot of variation in circumstances that can’t be accounted for in the current rules. There are plenty of amateurs who ride in their correct levels who would benefit greatly from being able to teach beginner lessons (and increase riding opportunities in their areas) and just as many shamateurs competing where they shouldn’t. It’s hard to see people shut out due to the dishonesty and bad sportsmanship of others.
9 Likes
I like the “if you’ve won so many times at X height, you go open at that height.” It’s already tracked and costs zero money to build the infrastructure to get it done. It’s already right there.
15 Likes
