Don’t some western disciplines and breed associations do this? You have non-pro divisions, or semi-pro, and can “point out” of certain restricted classes?
3 Likes
Whether you support this change or not, this is a HUGE change to make via fiat.
11 Likes
Well, the Sallie Wheeler folks can’t even be bothered to look at USEF for the breeder when giving out a “top breeder” award, even though that information is right there. And that’s the BAREST minimum effort… so…
14 Likes
Yes, it’s quite common in the western world. Seems like a good middle ground solution that keeps amateur divisions for people who truly aren’t making money teaching/training horses.
This “presidential action” just seems like it’s saying, “it’s ok, the Shamateurs were right along that they shouldn’t have to compete with the Big Name Trainers™! Now it’s official 
”
3 Likes
This takes care of the "over"qualified amateurs. But still leaves the "un"qualified amateurs educating the next generation. Seems like we need to squeeze the tube of toothpaste from both ends. I honestly don’t know what the answer is, or the best way to implement whatever the answer ends up being. But legitimizing a group of people who have been causing real problems in the sport with a magic wand is certainly NOT the answer.
4 Likes
This ABSOLUTELY bothers me more than anything else. I’m alright being the minority that doesn’t like it (if that were the case), but like @vxf111 said this is a HUGE thing to steamroll in with “presidential modification”.
7 Likes
I’m going to be blunt - if they can make it around a ring at a rated show, they are qualified to teach beginners the up downs/first canter/whatever up till about 18"-2’.
We need to stop setting that particular bar too high in the air.
16 Likes
Yeah, I am with you there.
I am still trying to decide whether I think this is better/worse than the status quo…
But I can tell you with certainty that I am uncomfortable with the idea that one person at USEF can unilaterally change the rules without any process for formal input from members and no real way to challenge that change.
12 Likes
Rules are subject to the perception of the users. Human nature is such that when one part of a thing is definitively false, the whole of that thing is deemed false, or at best questionable. When rules are perceived to be unenforceable, they become worthless.
USEF has just made the Amateur rule into a bunch of random letters on the pages by creating an entirely unenforceable rule.
6 Likes
You’re right. I’m wrestling with a bigger issue, because I will argue 'til my dying day that there are too many unqualified people teaching this sport.
4 Likes
For mid to upper levels, I agree. For the bare bones beginners, we need to focus on accessibility (IMO).
I think that having a certification program would be great, but that will just drive prices higher. I don’t think it’s going to prevent the dumb stuff you see from a lot of people, either - some have good horsemanship and some don’t, and anyone can put on a show to get their certificate and then go home to their junkyard of a pasture with unsafe fencing.
3 Likes
I know plenty of pros that can’t teach for sh*t, and plenty of regular riders that could put a better foundation on a beginner than MANY good trainers. Teaching the basics (wtc and crossrails, for my purposes) is a whole different game than teaching someone how to horse show or jump around 3’. Horsemanship and good management is completely separate too, IME.
I don’t think this rule changes anything about the quality of instruction though.
18 Likes
I’m really skeptical that letting riding instructors show as amateurs will make riding cheaper or more accessible for beginners. School horses will still cost just as much to feed and shoe, regardless or whether the instructor has to show against Nick Haness or not. The reason lessons cost a lot isn’t because the only people available to teach them are super-duper-overqualified upper level professionals, it’s because horses are expensive.
This seems to be a case of looking for justification to allow non-amateurs to show in the amateur division, rather than a real solution to anything.
14 Likes
I think some of the discussion I’ve seen online has focused on the effect this will have on the A/O division at bigger shows (which, honestly is probably not much - the winners in that division are generally lovely riders and I don’t think someone teaching beginner lessons will shake that up too much).
I think the bigger effect will be on the more local rated shows or the ammy divisions of lower heights. Having someone who is actively teaching kids to ride at home being able to show in the low adults seems fundamentally unfair.
9 Likes
I do not necessarily agree with this.
Sure, even I can teach a kid to sit on a good horse and go around.
But … the person who should be teaching the true beginners is a person with a skill for teaching true beginners, who has a tool box off of techniques and language that actually gets the true beginners learning how to ride Dobbin, not just sit on Dobbin. This type of person is a very special person and should be treasured.
This is clearly a tangent to the topic at hand.
6 Likes
I am happy about the rule change. I am an adult re-rider who rode across multiple disciplines as a child (Evented, Fox-Hunted, HJ, Pony Club ect) but now shows locally a maybe 4-5 times a year. I enjoy starting young horses (my personal horse) and sharing my knowledge with the younger generation. Up until this point, that meant things like how to wrap, groom properly, clean tack etc. Now I can also teach the foundations to beginners. I don’t think that should make me a pro, I am still working my 9-5 job trying to figure out how to get my rides in, I’m still making the same mistakes I made yesterday (dropping my shoulder, my eye , screwing up a distance etc). I have zero interest in making this a full time gig, or teaching beginners past x-rails, but I am looking forward to possibly earn some money off my board and helping to introduce a new group of people to our sport.
15 Likes
I don’t disagree that it should be that person. But with the bottom falling out of the sport, I don’t think we can be that choosey anymore.
I think anyone should be allowed to teach kids, should they so choose to (it can be immensely frustrating). When kiddo is ready to move on, they can. Getting them in the door is the critical part, fueling that fire without it pricing people out right from the get go.
We have slowly but surely eliminated all the ways that lower income people could afford to at least participate in this sport in an entry level way (barn rat days are in the past, I think) - this might open the door for more people.
8 Likes
I think the bigger issue is that there are people doing the low adults at many shows on horses that are obviously extremely fancy and expensive, to the point that they look like somebody accidentally brought them to the wrong ring that day to hop over the lower jumps.
I don’t think this rule change will have any effect on that issue.
14 Likes
This. This is my world and the two shamateurs I know fall right into this unfair sweet spot - in both the hunters and the jumpers. Luckily for me, neither of them can find their way to 8 jumps or remember a course most of the time, so it’s not a whole lot of sweat off my back when we do face off. lol. But my grapes still taste a bit sour nonetheless.
6 Likes
If a rider has the money to buy Rumba reincarnate to do the low adults on, I don’t think there is any way to prevent that. You can’t write a rule that says “this horse is too nice to do this division.” And maybe that rider is terrified, or has never jumped higher than 2ft, or has trouble remembering a course.
The issue we can (and previously did) prevent was someone who is teaching in their free time walking into the low adults.
13 Likes
