Sorry @lorilu I don’t think everyone wants a ribbon, but everyone DOES want to feel they are “part” of the group. And THAT no longer happens. I’ve been involved as a volunteer with the show scene for about 25 years now, and riding for probably 20 years - and back in the GROWTH years of dressage, everyone was welcome. On our Morgans, Tbreds, Arabians, we were part of the sport. Now days, after getting a test with one comment throughout (needs impulsion), or getting comments such as “limited gaits, lacks potential”, or “flat gaits”, or “not really suitable for dressage”, and so on, people get discouraged.
I was at a clinic specifically for AA riders 2 years ago, and the clinician (a well known judge and competitor) told one rider her (Quarter)Horse would never advance in dressage. Her ONLY teaching tips to that poor rider were to “cut her tail so it looks better”. The next rider, on a fancy Warmblood, got an hour of teaching (15 minutes of that belonged to that prior rider). She was relatively new to dressage, and had a perfectly suitable mount to learn the basics on. AND she had told the clinician that in the beginning!
I find it ironic that the USDF is bemoaning the loss of membership, the loss of volunteers, but then basically treating its base membership as disposable and unimportant. So, there is THAT…
@AnastasiaBeaverhousen gearing toward the AA alone doesn’t really fix the issue - there are plenty of very wealthy AA riders out there that have schoolmasters in full training, and are plenty competitive. If you want to build up the base, you need to find a way to make “fancy horse” less important in the mix…
In some non-rated competitions, they actually attempt to level the playing field, and focus on riding and training instead of big gaits. Specifically, intercollegiate competitions do this, and OPRC (Old People’s Riding Club) does it too. I’ve judged both, and have judged intercollegiate several times - the judges are told at the beginning - quality of gaits is NOT part of this competition. It puts a whole different spin on things.
@ several people - the cost of showing is eclipsed by the cost of a fancy horse in full training. That is just reality. Back in the days, most of the competitors were not in full training - they might haul in for a lesson weekly, or be in a part time program, or have a horse in training for a few months to help with a specific issue. But the vast majority of people rode their own horses - and they were “regular” horses. The European invasion changed that - suddenly our American horses weren’t good enough.
Most people showed at Training and First Level. Getting your bronze medal was a BIG DEAL. Most never really intended to go much beyond that. Our lower level classes were FULL, even at USDF Regionals - it was pretty common to have over 30 horses in each division at those levels (AA and Open). The classes got much smaller from 2nd level onward. Now 3rd and PSG are the biggest divisions (at least in my Region).
So, we’ve lost our grass roots - well reality is, we haven’t lost them. But they aren’t showing at rated shows, and they aren’t members of USDF (and the GMOs) because, well, why? They aren’t WELCOME. So instead they show Western Dressage, or they show at schooling shows (we have schooling shows that are two-ring now because there are so many entries).
Horses are expensive. But full training and fancy horses are MORE expensive. It cost me about $200/month to keep my horse at home. It costs me 3.5 times that to board a horse. Add training to the mix, and now we’re talking a house payment! Add the cost of buying a nice horse into the mix - I hear what people are paying - it is WAY out of the price range of the average rider. $30,000, $50,000, $80,000, over $100,000? For a HORSE? I didn’t pay that much for my car! And that is where we lost the grassroots membership…
I still remember when gaits was not the first part of every single score. The fancy moving horses got a few bonus points in the collective marks at the end of the test. For the rest of the test, we were all on the same playing field. And dressage was a rapidly growing discipline.
So, if you really want to make it affordable, its going to go back to less emphasis on fancy, more emphasis on training. I went through the L Program about 20 years ago because I wanted to understand WHY the scoring was changing so dramatically. I learned. Gaits are a huge part of EVERY. SINGLE. MOVEMENT. The sport has evolved - it is not just about training - that is a component of it, but not the only component, or even the main component. And yes, we can train our horses and develop their gaits, I do understand that - but everyone on a fancy Warmblood needs to understand - they have an innate advantage. Carl Hester couldn’t make MY horse into an 8 mover, but YOUR horse comes out the gate an 8 mover. And the judge is going to comment over and over about my horse’s lack of reach and impulsion, so why bother - I KNOW my horse lacks scope, but I love my horse, I’ve developed him, he has good basics, can’t I get some feedback and acknowledgement on that, instead of 25 comments about his lack of fancy?. THAT is where you are losing people (please note, I’m not necessarily talking specifically about MY horse, but talking collectively, because there are a lot of us out here who ride “that” horse).
And yes, good affordable instruction is part of the challenge too. It is all over in Germany, Holland, even the UK - and hard to find and expensive here. I doubt that will change - no one wants to use tax $ to fund horses - a “rich man’s hobby”. Horses are part of society in Western Europe; Ball sports are part of society in the US.
I don’t think you can fix it - I think that horse has left the barn…
I’ve seen this type of thread circle around many times over the last (close to) 30 or so years. It always seems to be the same, not so much making ‘Dressage’ accessible but it’s more about making SHOWING dressage accessible and appealing.