Yes, that is the the first objection. The question was; WHY? What was the rush, why the abuse of the “extraordinary” rule change procedure? There needs to be an explanation of why this rule was necessary and why it qualified as “extraordinary”.
Sneaking it in the back door without input from the rank and file will only come back to bite them. Did they really think no one would notice? The rule change will now have to be defended not only on its merits, but along with the dubious manner in which it was enacted. Not good governance.
Can someone please zero in on the exact page where the FS qualifying score is discussed? I looked at all of the 2018 docs on this site and couldn’t find it. I would like to put something in my GMO’s newsletter to make the general public aware.
Thanks for posting the link. Here is what I extracted from it regarding the reason for the change.
“To achieve consistency across dressage competitions for both eligibility for USEF/USDF regional championships qualifying class requirements and Freestyle classes. USDF already requires a higher score to qualify for regional championships.”
While that may be true, I don’t see why it is such a problem that it requires an “extraordinary” rule change. There’s no harm in letting people do a freestyle with a first-3 score of 60%. If they can’t get 63% on the freestyle then they don’t qualify for regionals but at least they get to ride a freestyle.
I mentioned this issue to a non-horse person and their response was “just to do those local [i.e. schooling] shows”
How can I find more information about the exact proposal and what was passed? I scrolled down and DR 129.9 is just that you need to provide documentation - nothing about the qualifying score.
But…in the interim…Look at the link…scroll down…and down… to Page 119 of 340…this is all that is provided.
Extraordinary Change Reason
To achieve consistency across dressage competitions for both eligibility for USEF/USDF regional championships qualifying class requirements and Freestyle classes. USDF already requires a higher score to qualify for regional championships.
Rule Change Intent
To achieve consistency across dressage competitions for both eligibility for USEF/USDF regional championships qualifying class requirements and Freestyle classes in all other licensed dressage competitions (and classes at competitions run under DR Rules).
Well, riding an Appaloosa (even a big, fancy moving one), that’s exactly what I did for many years. Not so much a problem these days, but 25 years ago…
I have never done a freestyle ( musically challenged)
but I always enjoy watching them if they have good music, and when I drag a nonhorsy friend or my husband with me that is always thier favorite part of the day.
Therefore I can only think it is more elitism coming from the dressage powers.
it does seem insane that they would want to discourage instead of include their members.
Unless you have ridden an average horse it is hard to know what you are up against even on a good day, much less when you are having a bad one.
My first dressage horse had a pony trot and at training and first we had to be on our game to get in the mid 60’s.
I have a really nice warmblood now and back when she was at first and training I thought every show was Christmas!
I showed her the first time when she was 4 at training, she was spooky and a bit tense put still won the class with a 68.
If my Tb had put in that test I doubt we would have broken 60.
With the expense of showing now would it even be worth it to show your average horse knowing if you had a bad day you would not qualify.
A good moving horse just starts at a higher place.
Anyway I think it is sad, the freestyles add a little fun to the show.
And this is sad…but true. And IMO NOT what dressage should be all about. It is supposed to be about correct and proper training, not just flashy gaits. Flashy movers are very fun to watch (and ride!), but not everyone can afford flashy.
I think that’s fine because that is ultimately what will do the organization in. There are too many areas that don’t run enough qualifying shows. Then there is the fact that the base of the organization is NOT people who have no trouble paying $250k for a horse and wintering in Florida and paying a trainer locally in the summer. Those people earn their money and live on a budget and they will not be chasing scores that are out of their reach or driving their horse 12 hours each weekend to chase qualifying scores… When the organization limits itself to an elite subsect of the membership, then suddenly those very people who insist on these rule changes will lose their paycheck. And, IMO, that is what they deserve. Ultimately, when this stuff evolves, the rest of us will still have horses and still enjoy them, but we won’t be contributing to an organization that excludes us.
Agreed…the star is rising for unlicensed shows. They don’t have to be “schooling” shows, per se. I know stables and GMO’s that have annual show series.
But I still think the smurfs should speak up or show up @ the USDF convention to remind TPTB who makes up the bulk of the membership and that they are paying attention.
The convention is scheduled during the week, between Thanksgiving and Christmas. How many smurfs have an extra 3-4 days vacation time at work + money to fly out and pay for hotels for 4-5 days in the middle of holiday season, right when family expenses and demands on vacation time for family events are at their highest?
It’s not as easy as just showing up at the convention for many people.
Which I am sure TBTB are counting on, or at least taking advantage of.
In full disclosure, I’m not even a smurf–I left USEF/USDF years ago for schooling shows and was drifting back to hunters before I had to stop riding this year anyway. I only follow these conversations because you never know what the future will bring, although if this really is the direction they are going… it’s pretty likely the future won’t bring me back into the national orgs.
I agree wholeheartedly. If the USDF wants to grow the membership, they have to address the interest of those people who are “outside the tent.”
Nice catch on the timing…agree that holding a meeting in SLC at this time of year, which is “in season” for skiing, is a budget buster for a lot of people.
I attended the Region 1 meeting in March and heard nothing about this proposed rule change.
The Region 1 2018 Fall Meeting will be done by teleconference date on November 14 at 7:30 pm. Contact the Region 1 Director, Bettina Longaker. The 2019 Region 1 Spring Meeting will be held March 3rd, 9:30 am at Hassler Dressage, Chesapeake MD.
I am a member of one GMO because they supported the Nerd Herd during the original proposal to establish qualifying rules. To this day they host a copy of the paper we published…the only peer-reviewed statistical analysis of over 45,000 dressage scores.
Pluvinel, do you know where the current membership numbers are for USDF and any other statistics on how many shows they had this year vs. say 2008? I only ask because we perceive in my region that dressage is declining here, with fewer and fewer venues and facilities to support it and competition with western dressage (that actually gives real prizes) and working equitation (that has more romance about it). If it is true that the membership is dying off, then why would they pull something like this right now? If it’s not dying off, it just seems like an attempt to weed out the riff raff. LOL.
[I]I don’t have any insights on USDF member numbers…and USDF doesn’t seem to publicize it. Perhaps folks here can reach out to USDF and ask the question.
Here is a COTH article discussing a USDF dues increase back in 2016 that said USDF had 29,000 members. This is down from a 36,000 number I had previously seen. http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/…ing-convention
Obviously, if membership is going down, dues for individual members are going up…especially when the USDF Exec Director Stephan Heinzsch gets about $200K total compensation (per 2016 IRS Form 990).
I think everyone should ask their GMO representative or PM Delegate, or Regional Director to explain how this rule change came to be.
Of course they are going to spout the pablum about aligning scores…but one can always ask why this had to be done thru the Extraordinary Rule process.[/I]
Well Pluvinel, THIS delegate wont be “spouting pablum”. What crap and it offends me. We were not told about this either. And I am pretty sure it will be discussed at the convention. And Oh by the way - the convention has been scheduled for that week for many years - between Nationals (and Regionals) and the USEF COnvention.
I applaud you…and cheer you on for not caving in to someone(s) power trip.
I have been hitting my networks and the deep intel word on the street is that the regional directors were “not allowed to discuss it” at the local annual region meetings.
So…take that bit of trivia and see what TPTB have as a reply.
Does anyone know who the appropriate person to email at USDF would be? Also, since USEF actually enacts the rules, wouldn’t it be appropriate to contact someone there as well?
