Hmmm…I beg to differ.
I sat in on an ELCR (Equine Land Conservation Resource) board meeting where this was discussed.
One of the speakers said that the general public’s perception is that horse owners belong to “the moneyed class”. But when they did their survey of horse owners in Kentucky, the average horse owner earned $50,000/yr.
Perhaps the demographics of USDF are higher because they have truncated the lower portions of the population.
There are many parts of Kentucky where $50,000 would provide a perfectly reasonable upper-middle-class existence.
There are also many regions of the country where that wouldn’t buy you a parking space.
Income is not necessarily the correct measure. Disposable income would be better. But the truth is across the board that wages have not kept pace with inflation and property/property taxes are an increasing burden. It doesn’t matter where you are.
I think you have to define the problem more. Do you mean more accessible for the people who are already engaged in the sport, so therefore committing time and resources to it? Or do you mean more accessible for potential dressage people? Perhaps are into horses but not dressage, or youngsters who just want to ride - do they then find a burning reason to choose dressage?
I am afraid it mostly boils down to money and time. And money buys you the time to devote to training. I know lots of dressage riders who are high earners in professions, but are busting their behinds in those professions to bring in the money. The actual time sat on the horse isn’t there. They pay for nice horses, nice stuff, good trainers, but the actually bum in saddle time is lacking. Whereas someone who is say…a trust fund baby…has the time and money.
Factor in land being swallowed up for housing and kids being raised by risk averse parents and habituated to prefer screen time. I really worry about horse sport in general.
If people can be exposed to a horse at an early age or get a chance to be with a horse -maybe that ignites a life long spark in them, like it did for most of us from non horsey parents. That first skewbald pony I gave sugar cubes to…got me hooked for life. It was the horse that did it… No outside interference at all, just that slobbery muzzle and those big eyes. Hooked. If you have the access and exposure to an equine - and you decide it’s for you - then you will move mountains to have a horse in your life. I wonder if riding clubs might provide access for enough people.
Could part of it be that a 60% today is not the same as it was 15/20 years ago? Not that the horses are better - they definitely are. But that what constitutes a certain score has changed. It’s now harder to get that 60%? TL is supposed to “confirm that the horse demonstrates correct basics, is supple and moves freely forward in a clear rhythm with a steady tempo, accepting contact with the bit.” A QH who demonstrates this should score the same as a WB. The fancier gaits shouldn’t be given extra points.
Some random thoughts: 1. I think accessibility starts at a local level with a good size and active GMO. When I lived in NE Ohio we had a big membership and great people who were willing to volunteer a lot. That GMO put on 6 schooling shows between March and August and then ran a schooling show CHAMPIONSHIP in September. All at different facilities, you only needed three scores to go to championship, cheap entries. A whole show season with little cash outlay, no need to have fancy coats or tack, and good turnout. BUT that is hard to do.
When I moved to Florida I got briefly involved with GMO here, way fewer members, not many active, had trouble doing 1 schooling show/year and even had a tough time getting members to come to a clinic or ride-a-test. That said, within an hour or so in any direction, there are several organizations which each run a couple schooling shows a year, so overall the low cost alternative is available.
So my point #2. Accessibility will vary by geography, obviously. If you have an area where there is enough lesson interest to support a number of competent, affordable trainers then you have some hope of getting an active GMO. But there are “horsey” areas and voids. I moved to Albany NY briefly many years ago - Up near Saratoga there were a few BNT type hunter/jumper barns. But in general Albany area - nada. No general mixed barns, no dressage barns, big void. When I was in Western NY there was a decent carriage driving circuit and some trainers. When I got to Ohio, there was nothing in the driving discipline. So I gave it up and switched.
There are breed standards for all the individual AKC breeds. Those do not exists for all types of horses. I say type because WB registries are just that, registries and not breeds. I have a successful Swedish Warmblood who is by a TB stallion.
In dressage each horse is judged against the single standard which is based on WB movement as discussed ad naseum above.
I suspect for the same reason that these threads always devolve into outcry against the imaginary message of “take your non-WB horse and go home, but give us all your money first” which is a misinterpretation of “there’s a standard and all horses are judged according to that criteria.”
Posts on the internet are an imperfect communication mechanism and people read things through their own lenses and interpret things based on their personal experiences.
What does that even mean? What is the monthly obligation on a high end sports car? I just looked up what it would cost to take out insurance on a Ferrari, and my total monthly equestrian expenses (incl. lessons) are a fair bit less than just the monthly insurance ballpark on a high end sports car.
I call shenanigans on the idea that organized dressage is exclusive because all of equestrianism is accessible only to the very wealthy.
A decade ago I had a base salary of $20k (living in a place where the median home price then around $1million). And I was able to find a way to keep a horse and even take lessons with an S judge often enough to make progress.
Last time I went to a horse show my base salary was $40k (living in a place where the median home price then was about $425k). And I was able to afford to keep a horse (incl. some crazy emergency vet bills) and take at least weekly lessons.
My circumstances are very different now (new job, new location) and my horse keeping cost may well increase a little soon. But my dressage life has moved through a variety of economic realities, and along the way I’ve met many, many other dressage enthusiasts who are able to do dressage on all sorts of budgets, from part-leasers to other frugal shoestring horse owners to everyday middle-class folks who devote a lot of time and money to their equestrian lives, to the wealthy patrons who buy horses from Europe for their trainers to ride. Equestrianism, and even dressage, is not a monolithic realm of extreme privilege.
So yeah, horses aren’t available to everybody. But they’re a lot more available to a much wider swath of the economic spectrum than your sports car analogy would suggest.
Most folks aren’t arguing in this thread that “there’s a standard and all horses are judged according to that criteria” means “take your non-WB and go home”. Again, you’re seeing villagers with pitchforks rather than people who want to have a discussion about what could be done to create meaningful opportunities for participation.
There’s a standard. All horses are judged with a standard implementation of those criteria. That implementation has changed over the last couple of decades such that ordinary horses’ scores will fall in an ever more compressed range of the scoring spectrum. The fact that this renders showing mostly useless to those of us on ordinary horses as a way of tracking our own progress (let alone anything like competition) is only one of the things people were trying to discuss in this thread, and discussing it does not necessarily entail any resentment toward those that are happy with the current state of affairs. There’s still a legitimate question here – whether/how the large numbers of riders who are excluded from meaningful participation by these and other changes in dressage over time could be served by some set of activities or changes to the sport (including changes that are compatible with recognized competition continuing to move toward a more elite standard). Some of us are able to have conversations about that question, even using the imperfect medium of internet posts, without turning this into an us vs. them dogfight.
I think you can classify participants in these discussions, and there have been a lot of them, into different groups…
The ones who say:" its expensive get over it, accept it or leave"
The ones who want to cheer it up with more freestyles
The ones who complain that all the judges are biassed
The ones who say non- warmbloods are usually scored lower because of their gaits
The ones who want to protect the AAs and give them a niche against the pros…
The ones who complain there are no trainers…
The ones who complain about score requirement which they are not able to fulfill because of breed, being an AA and whatsoever…
All of these people are right in a way… But all of their complains result from showing being so expensive… It doesn’t matter how expensive it is to keep horses… Obviously there are still people left who can keep horses… I think the problem are still these huge organizations which need a lot of money to keep going… And they give some treats to their contributing members… AAs get protected by this weird money rule and they have special classes…
Who cares whether somebody is an AA or a Pro… The only difference which should be made is how well somebody rides… A class should be divided into stronger and weaker riders and not into AAs and Pros… then you could give AAs the opportunity to earn at least some money which would make it a lot easier for AAs which are not unbelievable wealthy…
the next thing is that there should be the possibility to find sponsors for classes which give money prizes… another possibility to get some of the money you spend for a show back…
And then of course skim down these weird organizations… Its it not logical that your horse needs to be registered with 2 registries and you as a rider need to pay for 3 registries in worst case… This is simply a money thing… The next thing is the 2 show per weekend thing… More money to pay for participants…
I think spending $800 or more for a weekend showing 2 or three tests is outrageous and there is no way to find any arguments in favor of this… except that you sponsor some nice jobs inside these organizations… And as long as the situation is like this, the numbers of participants will go down and they will be substituted by wealthier and wealthier people…
I showed in Wellington (in the summer series). and I was the only one without a coach… There were some seriously nice horses, prepared perfectly by their trainers… I think the most impressive for me was the AA who got on her horse and did not even ride one complete round in the ring before starting her test…
I don’t care and I am not jealous, because I have BTDT and it was the unhappiest time in my life… I think that is not what riding is about… The fun is not riding a test with a horse which you usually don’t even ride, I think the fun is to bring the horse up the levels myself and I also got in that show my last qualifying score in 4th level for my silver, so I am not jealous for sure…
But its not a good situation for the sport… This way you will never get a solid base of dressage riders… And it also produces all these different groups of people with the opinions I listed in the beginning of my post
Sigh, that was a hyperbolic example to demonstrate how each “side” interprets what others are “saying” because we all read things through our own lens. I had hoped the next paragraph in my post would make that clear.
What I’m “seeing” is people who want to “be competitive” (whatever that means to them) at rated dressage shows and feel the system is “unfairly” (whatever that means) rigged against them by the “powers that be” (whomever they are).
I’m also “seeing” other people trying to explain how it came to be that the system is based on the existing criteria, and some making the case that they don’t see alternatives and others suggesting that perhaps if people are so unhappy, that there are alternatives that do not involve reformation of the current system.
This really does need to be addressed - too many freaking dues! Why do we need USEF, USDF, GMO, membership, plus Horse Recording #, Horse Registration #, etc - it makes filling out the entries more difficult then calculus, and adds to the $$$. And if you don’t fill out your entry right, then you get fined for THAT too…
Why can’t we just have a single membership? If we belong to USDF, why do we also need USEF? Why all these layers of administration? I agree with you on this Manni!
Yes, it is a small part of the cost of it all - but it is PART of the problem.
How rude. Of course we know what the gaits are. My comment referred to knowing that a QH, for example, might not show the extension that a WB would, and allow for that in scoring. But you knew that and just want to show off your copy/paste skills.
I would like to think you are right, but I have seen that attitude far too many times to dismiss it. I’ve seen it with clinicians, I’ve seen it with judges, and of course, with the rail birds. And a big part of that issue is that the STANDARD has changed.
So - either we accept that the standard includes an inherent bias - which disenfranchises a huge part of the membership - and thus membership is going to drop, and as a result, costs will continue to go up (gotta make up for that loss of revenue somehow), OR we address what is needed to become a more inclusive discipline (like we were back in the 80s and earlier 90s before the gaits were weighted so heavily in the scoring).
How about a golf analogy?
At the lower levels it is like everyone playing from the pro tees with no handicaps. You may have developed fabulous mechanics in your swing and endlessly perfected your putting with your garage sale clubs. But you are going to be overmatched against a pro or ammy with tons of coaches and specialists who have the latest $$$ clubs (no rules against the most souped up clubs!)
So you can take pride in your straight drives that are not as long as the supercharged drivers and try to make up strokes on the trickier holes. And maybe you still love to golf. But are you going to be willing to keep paying entry fees and memberships to enter tournaments with these rules?
Golf has managed to find levels for everyday enthusiasts to have competitions that appeal to all levels. Treating lower level dressage like materiale classes probably discouraged far too many riders.
There don’t have to be sides! Good conversations tend to happen when people can consider multiple perspectives, including perspectives other than their own.
A lot of us would love to see opportunities created for ordinary riders without degrading the sport for those who are able to put more financial resources into it and participate at a more elite level. But for that to be possible, more people would have to consider the diversity of viewpoints that make up the modern American dressage community, and not just fight for their own “side” and assert the primacy of their own “lens” over and over.
Decamping to “sides” and seeing others only as caricatures always tends to send these threads down the crapper. If you’re happy with how dressage is now, I can understand an urge to defend it. But that doesn’t mean that it is peachy from all perspectives, that any one perspective or interest is the most valuable or noble one, and that alternative options might not exist that would be equally good or better for a larger set of America’s dressage riders (including those who are well served now). Likewise, if you’re unhappy about the current state of dressage it doesn’t mean that dressage as an organized sport is becoming less meaningful for all riders, and it doesn’t mean that all of the changes that have happened over the last couple of decades are all bad or that we need to burn it all down and rebuild it (at the expense of the good things that are happening in the sport now).
Between all of the us vs. them crap, there have been some discussions here and there in this thread regarding realistic ideas to restore opportunities for meaningful participation for those of more moderate means. I’d like to see more of that kind of discussion (creative problem solving that takes into consideration the unmet needs in the community, the logistics of organized activities in our sport, and the value of current policies and practices) and less hyperbolic, self-centered bickering. But I guess that’s just me reading through my own lens again.
I found this post written in 2009 - does anyone have more current data?
USDF Membership:
304 Business Memberships
20,177 Participating Memberships
15,214 Group Member Organization Memberships
129 Affiliated Group Member Organizations
37 Intercollegiate/Interscholastic Member Organizations
850 Recognized Competitions
The federation currently has more than 35,000 members:
90% are adults
96% are female
66% are over the age of 41 years of age
96% own at least one horse
87% compete at least one horse
37% own at least five acres of land
70% have an income of $75,000 and above
Competitive Dressage Horses:
High insured values
Large investment and long-term relationship between horse and rider
Average competitive life is ten years
Peak performance age average is twelve years
Average age at which a horse is USDF lifetime registered is 7.5 years
13,666 new horses have been registered since 2005
92% increase in the horses competing at USDF recognized shows
Gaits are a percentage of every individual movement’s score…then an added general score on the back. Same as with the other scores for submission, impulsion, etc…
The judges are required to judge that way.
Thanks for your post.
I don’t have the answers and I appreciate the personal stories from the people who live the life of so many goals so little income.
I would love to hear from the ribbon hos also.
Although I completely understand if you dont want to deal with hoards of angry bitter, jealous COTHers who want to come through their screens and snatch you bald headed.
The spectacularly failed “riders tests” were USDF’s attempt to bridge this gap.
From what I have seen, very few riders really entered these tests… Which were far more heavily weighted towards training then gaits, and a great way for a good rider on a limited horse to receive accolades. I haven’t seen them for the last several years… I think they have evaporated.
I believe that the opportunity classes are also seen as another way to encourage grassroots participation without the big bucks. I encourage my junior riders in their first year of competition to ride in them. Same judge, less $$$
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
