Finally.
Was able to get on my husband’s office computer and sign.
Number 698. 
Originally posted by mwe:
Like it or not, it was just what was done at the time.
Pretty darn good reason right there for No-reinstatement! Lest history eventually repeat itself!
it is simply a case of the federation not being concerned with the opinion of the average member.
If we don’t stand up and have a say, then why should we be members. Why give us the rules, why go to meetings. It is our federation, everyone should be heard. We pay for it!
ya know… the legal system that we are all a part of would be in serious trouble if tattletailers did not get brownie points for being one.
Yes! I remember reading she did a full mia copa admitted her guilt and was humiliated by her mistake and groveled appropriately. She did not argue with the establishment.
We used to be in skating before horses and I was in skiing before there was a family so I pay more attention I guess than most. Although she has regained her license it is unlikely she will ever be selected again for a premiere event without a revolution.
The issues in skating are not that different than ours in horses and for the same reason it is more art than sport. We gave up on skating because the competitions were very limited and always four/five days far away.
I don’t know that we will ever totally resolve the problems between subjective judging and objective selection. Both methods have their flaws. What they did in skating that I thought was good and always that we would do in horses is they had test days and you had to earn your way up to a competition.
I’m sorry I’ve gone off on another tangent. It’s just the way my brain works,I apologize for the daliance.
I think that’s what I’m trying to say…Lots of us ARE personally aquainted with most of set-down folks, and have PLEASANT histories with them in every way. Years of GOOD association make it all the more difficult to get my mind around, in most cases, this one dastardly deed. Like some others, I’ll be slow to judge and leave it to the USEF.
That Fairview is probably the most intelligent post that’s been made on this thread.
Originally posted by baleofhay:
Without your signing you are condoning what PV and others have done.
not what that means at all. Some just remain silent, while others…well, quite the opposite
Originally posted by slainte!:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
Mucking his barn???hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha gasp…sigh.
Obviously, you know nothing about the man in question. He mucks daily and arrives with or before all his staff. His day starts and ends with stalls. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
When did he start doing that? He certainly never used to do any barn work, there was plenty of staff for that. He always was one of the first and last trainers on the show grounds, but he wasn’t mucking stalls.
The logo says nothing about Mr. Valliere personally.
I’m always puzzled by the arguement that he is somehow circumventing the terms of the suspension. The AHSA could have said something like ‘we will only consider an application for reinstatement if he has nothing to do with horses for ten years’, but they didnt. What they did say was quite the opposite - he has to demonstrate that he’s ok to be around horses, which presumably requires his continued involvement.
Whoever said the no reinstatement people’s real beef is with the AHSA’s ruling 10 years ago was pretty smart. Was that Glimmerglass?
C.Boylen if you’re answering me. In your post where you felt your personal opinion was OK! even though your position on the animal welfare committee requires a different perspective.
To me it’s like saying only the atheletes coming matter, only the beauties and only those people maybe with a great brain are worth worrying about.I can’t help but see your two posiions as a serious conflict of interest. But then, that’s only my opinion and I’m not in USHJA now. I guess next year I will be compelled.
There are ugly horses without a whole lot of talent that are the most lovable creatures I have ever known. I would hate to think that because I died it would be OK! to kill them all because they have no sales value. All they’re good at is teaching kids how to be good people.
LOL! I was just about to add “Well said, Duffy”
Oxer, you were told in the other thread that only so many colors exist for the bracelets. We need not go there again.
Oh BTW…I proudly wear my R E D bracelet from the American Boxer(dog) Charitable Foundation. 
I do think there is a difference.
On one hand we have affluent people with a perfectly sound and sensible horse that is murdered just because they either don’t want to take a loss, don’t want the tax benefit for the loss or are afraid that someone else might be able to make the horse everything that was anticipated and perhaps come back to beat them. In this case there is a Federal crime of defrauding the insurance company and cruelty or abuse of an animal.
On the other hand you would probably have a horse which has not been saleable; that they can’t afford to support and no one will take it even for free. It is unlikely that it is either sound, sensible or useful.
Granted I would prefer to have the horse shot and then dispose of it but that’s expensive and maybe they really don’t have the money. That could be their food budget. And, it may be distasteful but it is not illegal.
War Admiral - if you go in and edit your first post on this thread, you can change the title to include something like
Please sign this petition to stop USEF from reinstating membership to convicted horse killers
And make sure there is a link in the first post.
I bet a lot more people will find this thread.
Boberry, not my idea of a party! We can do better than that any day.
I have the ugliest $5.00 pony that qualified for pony jumpers at Harrisburg and I really wanted to bring him there and then show them how much their expensive ponies were really worth. What they DO is more important than what they look like in my book.
It’s just like a horse show is not a beauty pageant! If the girls want a beauty pageant they can try out for Miss America.
Actually it would be the “hunting” crowd…the “hunter” crowd would be right here…H/J…and we are not boring! Hunters and hunting are dipolar nowadays…
Originally posted by Janet:
It is fine to be “against reinstatement for anyone convicted of X”
Thanks!
But if you think that is going to have any influence on the current 'suspended persons" you are living in a fantasy.
Where are we without our dreams?
The FACT is that they were each suspended WITH THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR REINSTATEMENT at a specific time. Much as we may wish that they had been given a permananet suspensiion, the FACT is that they have been granted the right to reapply.
The FACT is that specific criteria were given for applying for reinstatement. Much as we may wish the criteria were stricter, we can’t go back and change the criteria.
See my post above.
If you want to ACCMPLISH something, as opposed to blowing a lot of hot air that makes you feel better,
My,my…I will in future feel freer than I ever have in this thread to be more frank!
you need to address EACH person as he/she applies for reinstatement. And you need to address it in terms of the STATED CRITERIA for reinstatemnt- not in terms of what you think the criteria should have been.
Do we? Is this from the HC’s, I mean, horse’s mouth?
