Proposed New USEF Green Hunter Rule

I posted this on the Microchip thread but think it needs its own discussion.

Originally Posted by Peggy View Post

Agree that 103.1 doesn’t go far enough. It’s the same for Pre-Green, which bothers me even more.

I just realized that when I did my copy and paste of 103.1, the strikeout and boldface didn’t come through. It reads a bit better with the strikeout parts gone, so interested parties should follow the link I provided back on page 2.

The more I think about the new 103.1 not applying to foreign national competitions EVER no matter the horse’s age and only having an FEI exception, it looks to me as if the foxes are definitely running the henhouse. You could have a grand prix jumper in Germany, albeit not FEI, who is ten and just imported and under the new rule he’s going to be given the whole pre-green/green hunter career. If the USEF is going to do that for imported horses, why not for North American ones as well? Why do US and Canadian and FEI jumpers get dinged and out, but not national horses in any other country?

Also under the changed rule, you could have an advanced event horse who jumps 3* heights but not at 3* competitions and it would still be green.

Did Larry Glefke write this rule?

Here’s the 2013 Rule:

HU103 Green Status - Hunter

  1. A Green Hunter is a horse of any age in its first or second year of showing in any classes in which the national specifications require horses to jump 3’6" or higher, regardless of whether or not the fences are actually set at 3’6" or higher at Regular Competitions or Eventing Competitions of the Federation or Equine Canada or any national or international competition.
    a. When shown in a Green section a horse in its first year of showing over fences 3’6" or higher must be shown as a First Year Green horse.
    b. When shown in a Green section a horse in its second year of showing over
    fences 3’6" or higher must be shown as a Second Year Green horse.
  2. A horse’s green status is considered to be broken once it competes over fences 3’6" or higher.
  3. If a competition starts prior to or on November 30th, Green status at the start of the competition is maintained throughout the competition.

Here’s the Proposed new Rule:

HU103 Green Status-Hunter

A Green hunter is a horse of any age in his first or second year of showing in any hunter, jumper, hunter seat equitation or jumping seat equitation classes held at Federation Licensed competitions, Equine Canada competitions and/or FEI competitions in which the specifications require horses to jump 3’6" (1.075m) or higher, regardless of whether or not the fences are actually set at 3’6" ( 1.075m).
Exception: Horses 6 years of age and under competing over fences of 3’6" or higher in jumper classes at FEI competitions will retain eligibilty as green hunters. The green status is the responsibility of the owner.

The rest of the Rule (a, b, 2, 3) is unchanged.

The rationale seems to be that the USEF and the owners shouldn’t have to be bothered with show records of foreign National Competitions for imported horses. Why would the USEF give foreign horses who have competed in National jumping competitions a pass and not give the same pass to US and Canadian and FEI jumpers? Microchips would solve the records access problem.

Here’s the 2013 USEF Pre-Green rule which is the default if there is not a Zone specific rule:

HU106.3
a. A Pre-Green Hunter is a horse of any age in his first or second year of showing over 3’ or 3’3" fences that has never competed over fences of 3’6" (1.07m) or higher. A horse that receives a 1st Year Green Reinstatement may return to Pre-Green if it is otherwise eligible.
b. A horse’s Pre-Green Status is not affected by showing as a three-year-old.
c. Classes may be divided by height section 3’ and 3’3". You may not show in
both height sections at the same competition. Horses may compete in both
height sections within the same competition year.

Here’s the proposed change:

HU106 Regular Hunter-Definition and Classifications*[CHAPTER SUBCHAPTER HU-1 DEFINITIONS AND ELIGIBILITY] change
to read:

  1. a. A Pre-Green Hunter is a horse of any age in his first or second year of showing over 3’ or 3’3" fences that has never competed over fences of 3’6" (1.07m) or higher. A horse that receives a 1st Year Green Reinstatement may return to Pre-Green if it is otherwise eligible per HU 105.

c. Classes may be divided by height section 3’ and 3’3". You may not show in both height sections at the same competition. Horses may compete in both height sections within the same competition year. A horse may compete in both the Pre-Green and Open sections at the same competition if he is otherwise eligible.

For Pre-Green, there doesn’t seem to be a desire to carve out imports for protection because “never” means “ever anywhere” unless there is a limitation.

IMO, the Green rule is truly evil and is meant to legalize what has been illegal before.

I totally agree - and sent in my comments. Everyone else needs to do the same. rulechanges@ushja.org

Total BS. They won’t get my nomination money if they change it to that. That is basically telling the US riders to purchase overseas. A slap in the face of US breeders. The breeders need to get in on this too.

What happened to Sportsmanship?

This is totally unsporting. Perhaps the definition of Green needs adjustment. I always thought it meant young and untrained, lacking experience at being ridden - not “new” to the discipline.

The only change is horses under the age of six? I believe that would be for YJC?

ETA: saw the other part, but seriously, who is going to take a GP horse and make them a 1st year green?

The only FEI exception.

Rules Committee Contacts / other email is bouncing

This was taken directly from the USHJA website (so no whining about revealing people’s contact info :wink: )
LARRY LANGER
Chair
Email: larlanger@gmail.com

MARY BABICK
Member
Email: mbabick13@gmail.com

PENNY CARPENTER
Member
Email: pencarp@aol.com

DAVID DISTLER
Member
Email: DavidDistler@msn.com

JOHN RUSH
Chair-Vice
Email: JRUSH3@AOL.COM

It would be strange to pass this rule after USEF censured Larry Glefke and Ken Garber for showing RF Amber Eyes at Upperville in the second years.
https://www.usef.org/documents/rules/HearingCommittee/2013/SeptemberAdministrativePenalties.pdf

[QUOTE=yourcolorfuladdiction;7253247]
The only change is horses under the age of six? I believe that would be for YJC?

ETA: saw the other part, but seriously, who is going to take a GP horse and make them a 1st year green?[/QUOTE]

Why not if a 1.50m horse is aging and can be trained to do hunters and there is good money involved? After all jumpers do Hunter Derbies and seem to do quite well.

[QUOTE=HiddenAcres;7253245]
This is totally unsporting. Perhaps the definition of Green needs adjustment. I always thought it meant young and untrained, lacking experience at being ridden - not “new” to the discipline.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think the definition of green ever meant any of this. Green status has always, to my knowledge, been dependent on show experience. The problem is that the rules were written prior to the import invasion, when the only show experience most horses could acquire was here at home. The rules were never updated to specifically account for show experience gained overseas, and since no one was checking that aspect, it has been completely ignored.

You can’t base green status on subjective aspects such as “young”, “untrained”, and “lacking experience”. If a horse is young but trained, is it green or not? What is the age cutoff for a horse to be considered “young”? If a horse is not “young”, but is still “untrained”, does it get to be green or not? What is the definition of “untrained”? What would be the criteria for being classified as “lacking experience”?

talk about a bunch of crap. Way to go USHJA. I can hear the European breeders celebrating from here…

[QUOTE=MoonLadyIsis;7253396]
talk about a bunch of crap. Way to go USHJA. I can hear the European breeders celebrating from here…[/QUOTE]

I agree. Why not just make the extra effort to look up show results from Europe. Many will get around it through the ubiquitous name change game, but it would be better than turning a blind eye to the issue as a whole. And in the meantime, they could figure out how to deal with the name changes - I haven’t read the microchip thread that popped up within the last few days, but I’m assuming it could be the answer.

Yes, I suppose it would be just the horses that have done the 5- and 5-y.o. young jumper classes that would squeeze in as green (and pre-green?) under this rule. It just doesn’t seem equitable to have different rules for horses that have done the FEI jumper classes and those who may have done the same height in a different class.

The hypothetical 8 y.o. GP jumper mentioned in another thread wouldn’t be allowed to do green as it would be more than six years old.

I got a reply from Mary who is on the committee:

Quote
Thank you for sending me your e mail. I will let the USHJA Office know that the emails are bouncing back.

I understand your concerns. I am the person who put this rule change proposal on the table. The newest draft is more open than I originally proposed. Although I would prefer a more restrictive rule, the USEF has shown me that they only have reliable data access to:

USEF
Equine Canada
FEI

In my mind, it is better that we have a rule that we can enforce rather than one we can’t. The rule that is currently on the books is unenforceable due to lack available data. This is a stop gap measure. The rule will be discussed in great detail at the USHJA Annual Meeting. My hope is to head towards age group hunters rather than leave it as an eligibility question. I have also proposed that we create sections for both American and foreign bred horses.
End Quote

This doesn’t make sense to me. Why exempt the young FEI jumpers when FEI REQUIRES a microchip? How is that not “reliable or available” data?

Thoughts?

^ I would imagine the FEI show records are easy to track, unlike the variety pack of assorted national shows held all over the place in Europe.

It might be like trying to keep track of results of a hundred different groups of schooling shows in this country that may or may not run similar classes under similar rules.

I agree it is disappointing that there are giant loopholes in the rule. I will say it is still a PROPOSED rule change, so now would be the time to voice your opinions via email to the people who can actually do something about it. Discussing it here on the BB is all well and good, but that’s not the same as going on the record to the USEF.

Again, looks like they ARE trying to remedy a problem here. The online spotlight glaring from these boards and others are doing some good, and I don’t really expect them to get it right the first time.

So kudos, and let’s have some discussion about it.

I think I see the logic - whether or not you/I agree with it is another thing, but I believe the logic of the “under 6” exception lies in the fact there is little for young horses to show in Germany (et al) that is under 3’6". The Elementary level class is 1.15m, and it is a jumper course.

It’s an issue I’ve been meaning to discuss with our German clients, as I believe their 5 y.o. classes are run at 1.20m? And they want to promote that. But what do I say, “Hey, could you stop showing your youngsters in your national standards young horse program? 'Cause you’re really killing your hunter marketability over here in the States.”

That’s just not going to happen.

So, I think the rule recognizes the reality of things. The European horses are going to come over here and they are going to have jumped 3’6"… in the jumper ring, with a bit of a seat-of-the-pants style.

IMO, the 5 y.o. young jumpers coming over here are not ready to go win in the 3’6" Green Hunters at top shows. Period. End stop. Are some people flipping them around that quickly? It seems so… but I think they are a minority.

And at the same time, the Green Hunter division is not healthy. Force too many restrictions on it and you will kill it altogether.

So what we have basically admitted here, disguised as a rule change proposal, is the glaring difference between the euro and north american system of breeding and starting young horses. Why are we scared of our 7 year olds having to compete against their 5 year olds?

We go slower with our young horses yet expect the same prices. Their 5 y.o.s cost as much as ours do, but their 5 y.o.s are jumping 3’6", and that is why people go to Europe to buy horses. I don’t see that changing anytime soon so we might as well take it into consideration when drafting rule changes, and think hard about what removing that exception would do to the numbers in the green hunter divisions.

I understand that this proposed rule is a stopgap measure because it is so much easier to track through the named organizations. But once you have a rule in place that legalizes the current import system of losing European National show records, it will be even harder to make changes in the future.

An alternative would be to give the same treatment to any horse anywhere that has got its show experience in jumpers (or eventers) and is changing to hunters. While many/most? NA young horses aimed at hunters will start their careers as hunters, unlike those imported from Europe, perhaps having a flat exception for horses moving from jumpers to hunters might seem fairer than giving imports a benefit that horses with only North American show experience are not eligible for. And they COULD put an age limit on ignoring National experience, just as they do for the FEI.

In the future, the UELN and the microchips would allow an entry to a horse’s passport.

Question for those who do import: A passport from a National NGB has to accompany the horse to all its shows in Europe, doesn’t it? And doesn’t the passport accompany the horse to the US? The microchip number is also contained in the passport. So if the USEF required a copy of the actual passport when the horse is USEF recorded for the first time, wouldn’t they have its complete show record? Id that is the case, then any rule could include all Competitions, National or International no matter where, and the seeming inequity would not come into play.

[QUOTE=dags;7253910]
Again, looks like they ARE trying to remedy a problem here. The online spotlight glaring from these boards and others are doing some good, and I don’t really expect them to get it right the first time.

So kudos, and let’s have some discussion about it.

I think I see the logic - whether or not you/I agree with it is another thing, but I believe the logic of the “under 6” exception lies in the fact there is little for young horses to show in Germany (et al) that is under 3’6". The Elementary level class is 1.15m, and it is a jumper course.

It’s an issue I’ve been meaning to discuss with our German clients, as I believe their 5 y.o. classes are run at 1.20m? And they want to promote that. But what do I say, “Hey, could you stop showing your youngsters in your national standards young horse program? 'Cause you’re really killing your hunter marketability over here in the States.”

That’s just not going to happen.

So, I think the rule recognizes the reality of things. The European horses are going to come over here and they are going to have jumped 3’6"… in the jumper ring, with a bit of a seat-of-the-pants style.

IMO, the 5 y.o. young jumpers coming over here are not ready to go win in the 3’6" Green Hunters at top shows. Period. End stop. Are some people flipping them around that quickly? It seems so… but I think they are a minority.

And at the same time, the Green Hunter division is not healthy. Force too many restrictions on it and you will kill it altogether.

So what we have basically admitted here, disguised as a rule change proposal, is the glaring difference between the euro and north american system of breeding and starting young horses. Why are we scared of our 7 year olds having to compete against their 5 year olds?

We go slower with our young horses yet expect the same prices. Their 5 y.o.s cost as much as ours do, but their 5 y.o.s are jumping 3’6", and that is why people go to Europe to buy horses. I don’t see that changing anytime soon so we might as well take it into consideration when drafting rule changes, and think hard about what removing that exception would do to the numbers in the green hunter divisions.[/QUOTE]

Maybe I’m missing something, but it does seem like they are trying to remedy the problem. For one thing, it makes perfect sense to me that they are trying to make rules that are enforceable. As she said, what is the point of a rule you can’t enforce? She also mentioned discussing the possibility of age group limitations, and separate divisions for American and foreign bred horses. All of those things, if they were to actually take place, seem to be on the right track if I am understanding all of this correctly.

I agree with Dags! Just because they have shown in the 1.15-1.20 in Europe doesn’t mean they have a clue about being a hunter! It’s a different mind set, different style different question all together. And since most of these horses are imported with the idea of being sold, more than likely to a non-pro, they really need “re-programming” with a professional to teach them their new jobs, something that needs to be done at a lower height. IMO

I do understand that there is a problem that they are trying to remedy and for that they need applause. But I worry that if the rule is passed in its present form, it will be much, much harder to make substantive and real change in the future to level the green playing field because, as now written, the rule seems to make legal what is now being done illegally.

The thought process should be “What do we want “green” to mean as far as show experience is concerned.” Go back to why we have “green” in the first place and try and formulate a rule or rules that will best achieve the goals of “green” status. In other words, establish the goal, then develop objectives and write rules that further the objective fairly and equitably.

Is the goal of “green” to introduce a horse to hunters or is it to introduce a young horse to showing and jumping 3’6"? These are two very different goals that would, it seems to me, produce different objectives to be imbedded in rules.