Personally I would like to see the USEF run on a day to day basis by people who are actually horse people with professional business backgrounds. The board members in some cases are but many of the employees and even some officers don’t know anything about horses or horse shows. Some have come from racing backgrounds and inflicted that industry’s ills on our industry, some have never swung a leg over a horse, etc. All of this shows in USEF trying to become more of a corporate entity with a focus on sponsorships, fundraising (let’s face it—this get out the membership drive is nothing more than trying to fill the coffers), and the like. The AHSA was not perfect but I found it much more user friendly because it wasn’t a conglomerate of interests run by well paid business people with no horse sense. I have been a member of all of the various forms of the organization over the years and do not understand why it is trying to be something “more” when it still doesn’t handle the essential functions of its purpose well (rule making and enforcement are at the top of that list).
I’ve never seen an actual advertisement. AHSA, The Fed or whatever other interim names they went under since I first had to join back 1970ish. Just the requirement to be a member- and there are plenty of other disciplines and breeds that require USEF membership plus a discipline or breed specific association too. Not unique to H/J.
Its Always been something you had to do and not anything you’d volunteer to do if you didn’t have to. No effort has ever been made to change that. Personally, I’d prefer they stuck to their stated purpose and enforced their own rules rather then try to drum up interest in membership from those that don’t have to join. As somebody else noted, just enforcing rules and beefing up fines for repeat offenders would generate more income. Maybe they could pay their front line people more so they’d stay more then two or three years.
I wouldn’t mind if the USEF backed some non-riding activities. There’s more to horses then riding. We always complain about people only caring about riding and winning and not being true horse people, so why not offer something to those that can’t ride and encourage horsemanship and care?
They are no longer the American Horse Show Association, They are the Equestrian Federation. There is more to being an equestrian besides sitting in the saddle at WEF.
[QUOTE=AffirmedHope;8016700]
I wouldn’t mind if the USEF backed some non-riding activities. There’s more to horses then riding. We always complain about people only caring about riding and winning and not being true horse people, so why not offer something to those that can’t ride and encourage horsemanship and care?
They are no longer the American Horse Show Association, They are the Equestrian Federation. There is more to being an equestrian besides sitting in the saddle at WEF.[/QUOTE]
You are right—it is now the NGB of all equestrian sports, authorized by Congress as such. Are there other NGB’s that do grass roots programs outside of their sport (as in non-riding, non-driving, etc.)? I am not aware of any but then I can’t think of other NGB sports that involve an animal…?? The point is why are they starting other programs akin to 4-H when they don’t have their house in order (in my opinion anyway) on what they have been tasked with so far.
[QUOTE=findeight;8016676]
As somebody else noted, just enforcing rules and beefing up fines for repeat offenders would generate more income. [/QUOTE]
:yes::yes::yes: Agreed!
[QUOTE=BeeHoney;8015988]
Actually, I don’t think that is the case. Microchipping is reasonably inexpensive and is a cost that would be borne by owners/competitors. I’ve heard people complain that it is “just one more fee” but come on–I have my freebie barn cats and shelter dogs microchipped, not a huge expense in the lifetime of a horse. There already is a line on the USEF horse registration form for microchip information. Scanners are small and lightweight and cost a couple of hundred bucks and are incredibly easy to use.
Restricting green divisions to green horses and enforcing that would cost very little. Likewise, enforcing amateur rules would also cost little to nothing. Might even bring in money if offenders were fined.
Changing hunter judging would not cost anything.
Changing the distribution of prize money wouldn’t change anything either. The USEF is not providing the prize money anyway.
Educational opportunities WOULD cost something, but it would be a cost that might be offset by more people joining an organization that is actually relevant to them.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to the costs of enforcing your proposals.
Perhaps it’s not as onerous as I thought. I was imagining someone standing at the in-gate, scanning every horse as it entered the ring. But on second thought you’re not asking that, right? You just want a number so USEF can track horse name changes?
How would USEF enforce the green divisions, particularly with respect to horses coming from Europe, without significant expense?
Agree on the judging.
IIRC, your original post mentioned additional money, not a redistribution. But your point is taken that prize money is not funded by USEF.
I would like to see a searchable database of trainers and owners that lists any and all infractions.
In addition, I’d like to see that any trainer/owner/rider with a drug infraction is automatically ineligible for USEF awards that year. That might actually make some of the multiple offenders take notice.
I’d also like to see horses microchipped.
These changes would go a long way towards leveling the playing field for all competitors.
Microchip all horses before joining/registering with USEF.
Enforce Amateur rules - fine them hard for violations.
Enforce green horse rules - scan horses at the gate to be sure who they are.
All microchips in the horse must be on the registration, i.e., those from Europe so European history can be tracked.
Drug testers must scan microchips when taking urine or blood samples.
Drug rule infractions need to be in a searchable database available to the general public. I will volunteer to help enter pre-computer era records.
Those with drug violations would not be eligible to receive any USEF award or appear in any USEF publication for one year other than reporting their violation/penalty.
Penalties and fines need to be standardized for each type of infraction - no giving your buddies a slap on the wrist and stabbing those you’ve never heard of.
Hearing Committee actions should be transparent and available to all.
Do away with the mileage rule.
Agree with the micro chipping and especially doing away with the mileage rule :yes:
Including microchip scanning with random drug tests sounds like a workable idea. The techs are already there, horse is already detained. Make the scans mandatory for big, restricted classes like Pre Green Incentive Finals.
Thats not too cumbersome or prohibitively expensive, is it?
Honestly think opening up disciplinary records is also a relatively low cost measure that will help dispel the behind closed doors good old boys club perception. At least back to the point they went online with them. They are already sitting in cyberspace, already have been made available just no way to easily search. Cannot imagine that’s a high cost item and it would be a valuable tool for members to get some value out of their membership $$$.
[QUOTE=findeight;8017446]
Including microchip scanning with random drug tests sounds like a workable idea. The techs are already there, horse is already detained. Make the scans mandatory for big, restricted classes like Pre Green Incentive Finals.
Thats not too cumbersome or prohibitively expensive, is it?
Honestly think opening up disciplinary records is also a relatively low cost measure that will help dispel the behind closed doors good old boys club perception. At least back to the point they went online with them. They are already sitting in cyberspace, already have been made available just no way to easily search. Cannot imagine that’s a high cost item and it would be a valuable tool for members to get some value out of their membership $$$.[/QUOTE]
You wouldn’t think. But I asked about one number integration across the various discipline children groups (USDF/USEA, USHJA should already be the same), and was told that everyone uses different databases, it’s hard to integrate, etc. I don’t think that should be that difficult for a decent IT person, you’d just have to make the effort, and re-issue numbers. It would make it a lot easier to have one chip, connected to one number, across whatever discipline you may choose to do. IMO, it would make more sense to get one main number issued by the USEF, that you then opt to activate with whatever discipline affiliate(s) you choose; that would also make it much easier to integrate the database information on horses and riders.
FWIW, I’ve found my USEF membership to be actually quite useful. They are very attentive and responsive when I have questions, I like the app they’ve developed, and really the membership fee isn’t that much in the grand scheme of things.
USEF doesn’t control show schedules, other than to mandate that junior classes must go on the weekend (see school requirements), if there’s no time in the schedule to run adult classes with the junior classes, then there’s no time. A show like Gulfport, which has 8 rings, they are able to run enough rings at a time to do adults and A/O on the weekend.
As far as hunter judging goes, I’m sorry guys, but I just don’t see the drugged looking horses being rewarded. I’m not saying they aren’t drugged, but if they are I can’t tell. I’ve got a keen hunter. Those that have seen him go can attest, keenness is not something we lack. We are rewarded when we go well, and are not when we don’t. I just don’t see a sweeping issue with hunter judging. Besides, you’re paying someone else for their opinion. If you don’t agree with it that doesn’t make it any less valid, just not yours.
I think my black horse is the bees knees and a ball of wax. Judges tend not to, unless it’s a man judge who likes a man’s horse. They’re few and far between, but they’re out there, and then I get rewarded as I deem I should be.
I digress.
I would love
- USEF to have real green horse rules,
- microchipping of horses,
- broader lottery style drug testing
- required announced scores for EVERY A rated division class (accountability in judging),
- and better/more training/participation of stewards.
Really I see the lack of steward involvement/management as a real problem that needs to be addressed.
The way microchips work is that they have a number on them that shows up when that chip is scanned–that number stays the same for the life of the chip.
I’m another person on the microchip bandwagon. I feel that ensuring fair sport is essential to attracting new people to showing. I have friends in racing–and not that the racing world is perfect by any means–but when you go to buy a racehorse that horse is linked to its identity very firmly. You know the horse’s name, age, breeding, breeder and race record. When your horse enters a race, you know with reasonable certainty that you are competing against horses that meet the specifications for the race. I think this transparency makes it easier for new owners to get into racing. I think that many newcomers to the world of horse showing are turned off by the fact that information in the show world is so nebulous.
Sometimes I feel (and this may just be a perception) that the USEF is more interested in protecting the industry (and big players in the industry) rather than protecting the sport. I think that protecting the sport will be better for long term success.
[QUOTE=JenEM;8017489]
You wouldn’t think. But I asked about one number integration across the various discipline children groups (USDF/USEA, USHJA should already be the same), and was told that everyone uses different databases, it’s hard to integrate, etc. I don’t think that should be that difficult for a decent IT person, you’d just have to make the effort, and re-issue numbers. It would make it a lot easier to have one chip, connected to one number, across whatever discipline you may choose to do. IMO, it would make more sense to get one main number issued by the USEF, that you then opt to activate with whatever discipline affiliate(s) you choose; that would also make it much easier to integrate the database information on horses and riders.[/QUOTE]
God forbid anyone apply practicality and common sense.
Also, I am not even an amateur any more but this brief lip service paid to “educational opportunities” leaves a lot to be desired. The impression I get is that the majority of the education initiatives are centered on selecting 20 year olds to send to Europe.
That’s great, but there are how many people on a team any given year and how many amateurs plugging away?
How about putting on regular, subsidized clinics in all the zones. If membership got people affordable clinic opportunities a lot more people would join, not just people who need membership to horseshow.
[QUOTE=Nickelodian;8017522]
FWIW, I’ve found my USEF membership to be actually quite useful. They are very attentive and responsive when I have questions, I like the app they’ve developed, and really the membership fee isn’t that much in the grand scheme of things.
USEF doesn’t control show schedules, other than to mandate that junior classes must go on the weekend (see school requirements), if there’s no time in the schedule to run adult classes with the junior classes, then there’s no time. A show like Gulfport, which has 8 rings, they are able to run enough rings at a time to do adults and A/O on the weekend.
As far as hunter judging goes, I’m sorry guys, but I just don’t see the drugged looking horses being rewarded. I’m not saying they aren’t drugged, but if they are I can’t tell. I’ve got a keen hunter. Those that have seen him go can attest, keenness is not something we lack. We are rewarded when we go well, and are not when we don’t. I just don’t see a sweeping issue with hunter judging. Besides, you’re paying someone else for their opinion. If you don’t agree with it that doesn’t make it any less valid, just not yours.
I think my black horse is the bees knees and a ball of wax. Judges tend not to, unless it’s a man judge who likes a man’s horse. They’re few and far between, but they’re out there, and then I get rewarded as I deem I should be.
I digress.
I would love
- USEF to have real green horse rules,
- microchipping of horses,
- broader lottery style drug testing
- required announced scores for EVERY A rated division class (accountability in judging),
- and better/more training/participation of stewards.
Really I see the lack of steward involvement/management as a real problem that needs to be addressed.[/QUOTE]
Really, you can’t tell that winning hunters are medicated? When 1-8 of nearly every jog at indoors in the professional divisions are all hanging down, you can’t tell? Come on.
Ybiaw, Sorry I thought this was an open thread , I didn’t realize your reply to Woodhillsmanhattan was a private message and not meant to be part of the general conversation .
[QUOTE=meupatdoes;8017582]
…Also, I am not even an amateur any more but this brief lip service paid to “educational opportunities” leaves a lot to be desired. The impression I get is that the majority of the education initiatives are centered on selecting 20 year olds to send to Europe.
That’s great, but there are how many people on a team any given year and how many amateurs plugging away?
.[/QUOTE]
So be careful asking for educational opportunities. If it ends up anything like the USDF, they will only benefit a very small minority of the membership and will be at the expense of all the members. Considering the size of the USA and the diversity of the members and their locations, it would be financially impossible to provide opportunities to everyone.
I love the idea of subsidizing clinics in all of the zones. Educational opportunities with interesting/well known clinicians would appeal to a very broad base. My local hunter/jumper organization sponsors an excellent clinic every winter and I’m guessing it serves as a very effective membership drive as well.
I do think hunter judging is an issue. As long as judging rewards overly quiet, robotic horses, people are going to try to make their horses go like that, and some will use medications and combinations of medications (legal, illegal, or untestable) to try to acheive that effect. That isn’t clean or fair sport and I think it is a turn off to the normal horseperson. FWIW, I’m not saying every judge rewards overly quiet horses, just that it is still very prevalent.
[QUOTE=Nickelodian;8017522]
- USEF to have real green horse rules,
- microchipping of horses,
- broader lottery style drug testing
- required announced scores for EVERY A rated division class (accountability in judging),
- and better/more training/participation of stewards.
Really I see the lack of steward involvement/management as a real problem that needs to be addressed.[/QUOTE]
One thing that I totally agree with - education and involvement of stewards. And I say this as a steward! One major change that needs to happen is to have the USEF hire/appoint stewards to shows to remove the repetitiveness we see from year to year at some shows. If we are supposedly working for the benefit of the USEF - upholding their rules/assisting competition management with rules/measuring, etc. - they should be the one to hire us for the shows.
[QUOTE=orangecrush;8017611]
Really, you can’t tell that winning hunters are medicated? When 1-8 of nearly every jog at indoors in the professional divisions are all hanging down, you can’t tell? Come on.[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t at indoors, I can’t speak to those horses or how they looked. I am at WEF, and just two weeks ago our jog turned into a comedy of errors as 1-4 (I was 3rd) decided jogs were for the birds and started flying like kite like creatures at the end of our reins. It was quite a moment.
I guess I’ve just been lucky to get the right judges that award my horses’s expression.
