The USEF Wants To Hear You

[RanchoAdobe]

The following are what I feel as a member would change the rated shows for the better. Note - I am an amateur, a breeder, an owner of open horses, and have been competing at USEF shows since I was 6 years old.

1. microchipping. This should be nonnegotiable and shows a significant weakness on the part of the organization to not be able to implement

2. whether you agree or not, whether it is reality or not, the PERCEPTION of the hunter ring is that all of the horses are drugged and the “common man” cannot compete on an even playing field. Perception or reality- this hurst the sport. Judging is subjective and judges human and they can only reward what they see in front of them. Solution? CHANGE the courses. Limit the number of related distances, require more jumps from unrelated distances. This will open the playing field significantly. The horse that can walk down the line will not be as rewarded as a rider who can ride track and pace. So much of the issue in the hunter ring derives from being judged almost exclusively on ability to cover related distances. Change the course design and the judging will adjust.

3. Green divisions based on age. If the USEF can’t create an even playing field or enforce the rules then change them. The current green division is anything but green and does make it hard for US breeders to bring along a young horse. American bred hunters cannot jump the height in any ring without breaking green. European horses have almost zero restrictions. It’s not a level playing field. Either limit by age and forget prior records or allow US horses to also come over from jumper land. One or the other but to treat the two differently is inherently unequal.

4. The pony debacle was bad press. A huge deal was made on measurement ts and threats were thrown around with the USEF really looking like of night do something for a change. The final result? The USEF backs down completely and NOTHING changes. I know ponies that were held out of showing last year to wait and see what USEF was going to do. Now there is one more junior hunter in the large green ring

[M_O_Connor]

Thanks, findeight for those comments. The USEF’s Horse Recording and ID Task Force was convened last summer; Judy Hedreen (sylvan farm) and I are both members of that panel, along with Summer Day Stoffel and Mary Babick, in addition to several others from various breeds and disciplines; it is chaired by Judith Werner, (from the Saddlebred world, and this year’s recipient of the USEF Lifetime Achievement Award).

The ID Task Force was ultimately designated as the proponent of the GR1101/1102 rule change proposals that I submitted (as an individual, but on behalf of the United States Sport Horse Breeders Association (USSHBA)) in order to clarify the existing rules on horse recording, which were confusing and not well written (similar to the ‘ringing tail’ that used to be included in the hunter rules).

The proposal went through changes and edits along the way, but was posted for comment along with other RCP’s on the USEF’s website for many months preceding the USEF’s annual meeting. If you will recall, the USHJA held a number of ‘town meetings’ around the country last year at which the issues of Horse ID and eligibility were discussed at length.

For all the fanfare and comments received the prior year, the USHJA’s microchip proposal didn’t even advance to the USEF’s annual meeting, as it was withdrawn by USHJA before the USEF could consider it. Though I didn’t think so at the time, with hindsight, I have come to agree that rushing to implement it at that point would have been a mistake.

Going forward, a lot of thought needs to go into creating a system that ensures fairness, in which confidence can be placed, that is not onerous or overly expensive to comply with, and which doesn’t create a host of unintended consequences, including those that may affect breeds and disciplines that do not have the ID problems plaguing certain others. It will take time to work through. But better to get it right.

In the meantime, there is no need to wait for a rule. Microchipping is a technology widely available to all horse owners now, and many horses (all in the EU, and many produced in the US) are chipped as part of their breed registry process. Owners can take the lead in having their horses chipped, providing USEF with the chip number (there is a spot for it on the application form), ensuring that a microchip scan becomes a routine part of every PPE, asking questions of their trainers, and declining to patronize trainers who cannot provide them with answers to those questions. There are horses whose identities will not be known, or can’t be discovered…but these should be increasingly fewer as time goes on.

[M_O_Connor]

I think there is a confusion here on this thread and during the chat the other day:

Problems exist that people (i.e. “members”) would like to see solved, but this will always be true. It’s true in every group in every community and is true in every situations in any walk of life. This doesn’t mean no effort should go into solving the problems, but we tend to be very blame-based, and always supposing that the grass is greener elsewhere…and, it isn’t!

The much ibroader question raised had to do with the relatively low rate of connection between a majority of US horse enthusiasts and the USEF.

I’m not sure about everyone else, but as a licensed official, trainer, and competition horse owner, my membership in USEF/USHJA is not optional…and many of USEF/USHJA members are similarly ‘captive.’

I’m not sure that current members could necessarily hold the key to why legions of other horse enthusiasts are not USEF members…

My hunch is that they would very likely not mind pitching in to support participation of our US team athletes in championship competitions such as the Olympics, World Championships, Pan Am Games, Jr./Young Riders, etc…even if they, like the bulk of USEF membership, are amateurs and juniors.

Equestrian sport has a lot going for it–in what other sports do men and women of all ages compete against each other as peers? But the USEF needs to step up its game in promoting equestrian activities and sports not just to the choir, but to the general public-at-large. Other sport federations have national programs available locally; USEF needs to do more to help local professionals bring more new riders into our sport!

[poltroon]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8022175]
The USEF needs to find a way to transfer information to the community in a way that is professional and effective. The COTH forum is neither of those.[/QUOTE]

The forum can be a good way to get informal feedback and discussion and ideas from people outside your membership as well as inside. I agree, it is not a way to disseminate USEF official information per se, nor does it create transparency.

A valuable strategy for social media for an organization (USEF being one example) is to use it to ask questions and to thank people for their feedback so that they feel heard. There are people here who have experience that is far outside of the experience any USEF staffer or committee member will have had, and a forum like this gives them a way to find out what it is like to be an amateur dressage rider in Wyoming or otherwise get insight into situations they do not personally experience.

[poltroon]

[QUOTE=M. O’Connor;8022352]
For all the fanfare and comments received the prior year, the USHJA’s microchip proposal didn’t even advance to the USEF’s annual meeting, as it was withdrawn by USHJA before the USEF could consider it. Though I didn’t think so at the time, with hindsight, I have come to agree that rushing to implement it at that point would have been a mistake.

Going forward, a lot of thought needs to go into creating a system that ensures fairness, in which confidence can be placed, that is not onerous or overly expensive to comply with, and which doesn’t create a host of unintended consequences, including those that may affect breeds and disciplines that do not have the ID problems plaguing certain others. It will take time to work through. But better to get it right.

In the meantime, there is no need to wait for a rule. Microchipping is a technology widely available to all horse owners now, and many horses (all in the EU, and many produced in the US) are chipped as part of their breed registry process. Owners can take the lead in having their horses chipped, providing USEF with the chip number (there is a spot for it on the application form), ensuring that a microchip scan becomes a routine part of every PPE, asking questions of their trainers, and declining to patronize trainers who cannot provide them with answers to those questions. There are horses whose identities will not be known, or can’t be discovered…but these should be increasingly fewer as time goes on.[/QUOTE]

I really appreciate your comments on this, and it sounds like your group is putting a lot of time and thought into it, for which I thank you.

I’d note that in dressage, we really don’t have a problem with fraudulent horse identities, and I’m not super keen on having to microchip my horses to deal with an issue that occurs for high dollar green hunters and does not apply to my daughter’s 27 year old Arabian.

[findeight]

Well, it doesn’t help with the fact the most blatent Pre Green fiasco involved somebody I thought was banned indefinitely for repeat violations and whose rider has since been fined, set down or censured at least once since his relatively recent emergence from the ashes on an unrelated charge, it’s the laying down with dogs with fleas thing.

I am still confused about what passed and what is on a back burner. And disappointed by who still flaunt themselves and their various horses in various partnerships with others in what those others should know are questionable partnerships in horses who are not quite as represented by somebody proven to have misrepresented in the past. But…how could they know?

And really, really disappointed nobody dares speak up even though it’s common knowledge. Let’s not upset that Apple cart or ask tough questions of those who are supposed to regulate

[Mardi]

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8018388]

I am all for microchipping horses without passports. The OWNER (not the trainer or agent who are happy to lie), will have to sign a “swear to God” form, that the information is true. At least, from that day forward, the horse’s name, age and show record will be known.

I am also for not allowing “unrecorded horses” to be known as/promoted as/ advertised as a certain breed.

It may be a little point, but I think that buyers who are spending 6 figures for an import, will not feel as important if they are riding a horse of indeterminate breed or unknown origin.

Chances of this happening? 0 to below none, because TPTB are the ones who are importing horses and “losing” their passports. And yet still seem to know what breed the horse is.

The fox is guarding the hen house and is getting away with murder.[/QUOTE]

There’s been a lot of praise and publicity recently for a certain top winning hunter with well-known owner and BNT rider. Yet that horse’s breeding (USEF recording info) is listed as “warmblood” with a generic birthdate and unknown sire/dam.

I find it odd that such a high-profile owner would invest heavily in a horse with an unknown background. Do they do that with their other financial investments ?

Any discussion about microchipping needs to include the UELN (Universal Equine Life Number). One horse, one number.

Microchipping/UELN benefits the breeder, new owners, and through the sports database, fairplay in competition. As of 2013, the FEI requires all newly registered horses to be microchipped and the information entered in to the horse’s passport and REPORTED TO USEF.

So USEF has the info on these horses, and for now, it seems that’s as far as they will go.

Also, USEF supports US breeders to some extent through horse shows (hunter breeding for example) but ironically there’s a real disconnect without microchipping/UELN to track offspring and their competition career.

[Lord_Helpus]

[QUOTE=poltroon;8022463]
I really appreciate your comments on this, and it sounds like your group is putting a lot of time and thought into it, for which I thank you.

I’d note that in dressage, we really don’t have a problem with fraudulent horse identities, and I’m not super keen on having to microchip my horses to deal with an issue that occurs for high dollar green hunters and does not apply to my daughter’s 27 year old Arabian.[/QUOTE]

Just curious. Are your pets microchipped?
I am glad that your daughter’s 27 year old Arabian is still showing. It says something for the longevity of the breed.

[midstride]

Microchipping question: Can’t a very determined cheater remove one chip and replace it with another? (surgery required)

[Thoroughbred1201]

@M. O'Connor;8022379

The much ibroader question raised had to do with the relatively low rate of connection between a majority of US horse enthusiasts and the USEF.

I’m not sure about everyone else, but as a licensed official, trainer, and competition horse owner, my membership in USEF/USHJA is not optional…and many of USEF/USHJA members are similarly ‘captive.’

I’m not sure that current members could necessarily hold the key to why legions of other horse enthusiasts are not USEF members…

My hunch is that they would very likely not mind pitching in to support participation of our US team athletes in championship competitions such as the Olympics, World Championships, Pan Am Games, Jr./Young Riders, etc…even if they, like the bulk of USEF membership, are amateurs and juniors.

I resent paying membership to an organization that does not enforce it’s own rules. When the drug rules show some teeth, and the measurement standards are upheld, then I might consider joining on the years I don’t show. And when I do show, I don’t even show Hunters any more!

I say again, if somebody is cited (for anything!), they should be out of the awards for that year, and as somebody else commented, they should not have their picture in any USEF publication.

So when I finally see that the BNT are held to the same standard the local trainers are, and are denied the one thing they really want (publicity & awards) when they are cited, I might consider supporting upper level sport.

In addition, a database of infractions BY PERSON is so doable. But it isn’t in the best interest of those running the USEF, although it certainly fits in the mission statement.

Why should I support upper level sport when 1) they can afford it themselves (perception yes, but I don’t see anything refuting that), and 2) I don’t see anything leveling the playing field for the rank and file.

You want more members? Clean the house.

Right now, my sense is that average members are the cash cow for the movers and shakers.

[Thoroughbred1201]

Frankly, I’m only going in two rated shows this year, and I’m considering just paying the non-member fee. I’ll have to pencil it out.

But really, if I’m this disgusted with the organization, why on earth would I encourage my non-showing friends to join?

(Sorry, meant to add this to the above post).

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=midstride;8024151]
Microchipping question: Can’t a very determined cheater remove one chip and replace it with another? (surgery required)[/QUOTE]

Discussed a few pages back. Not easily. Not without a vet’s assistance. So probably not likely (and I don’t think you can set rules around what the most INSANE AND WHOLLY UNSCRUPULOUS people will do but instead around what you can expect a typical person to do).

[woodhillsmanhattan]

@Thoroughbred1201;8024165

I resent paying membership to an organization that does not enforce it’s own rules. When the drug rules show some teeth, and the measurement standards are upheld, then I might consider joining on the years I don’t show. And when I do show, I don’t even show Hunters any more!

Ah, but you pay that lovely “drug fee” every show for part of that! :lol:…but I guess really my emotion should be :no::mad:

[Thoroughbred1201]

[QUOTE=woodhillsmanhattan;8024232]
Ah, but you pay that lovely “drug fee” every show for part of that! :lol:…but I guess really my emotion should be :no::mad:[/QUOTE]

LOL. Good point. I wasn’t thinking about that. I don’t mind paying the drug fee, IF they would enforce the findings!!!