Trends in Dressage: Anyone seen the article?

[SaddleFitterVA]

I show with light regularity. IOW, I think about 6 recognized shows a year is the max I really want to do, for now. This year (2012), I attended 3, with only one of those being an “away” show.

I tend to go to licensed shows, my horses are lifetime registered in both USEF & USDF, I have a lifetime membership in USDF and buy the 3 yr USEF memberships, so if it is a local show, the drug fee and office fee are the cost differentials, well that and now that I’m showing second level and above, I’m finding that the class fee is higher.

CDCTA run shows were $45/class at third.
PVDA was $40 for 2nd, $50 for 3rd
Dressage at Lexington was $40 for 2nd & 3rd.
VADA/NOVA run show was $45 for 2nd/3rd.

Most of our local shows are $25 or $30 per class.

A $50 office fee will usually make me say “skip it”, and PVDA Ride for Life was one of those this year. It is far enough away to require stabling and add in a $50 office fee, I’m out.

A $25 or $30 office fee I don’t mind so much.

For me, the bigger difference is that I am also paying for coaching at the licensed shows, because it does make a difference. I use local shows to practice and also like to go to “fix a tests”.

I am planning out 2013 and I will probably do 2 or 3 of the local, licensed shows (I’m lucky in that I live within 30 minutes of a big show facility), at least one in Lexington, VA, and since I really like the Williamston, NC facility & show management, I will probably go down there for one of those.

My goal is to get solid at 3rd level this year and get a couple of 4th level tests under my belt at the end of the year. Since I’m working to earn my USDF rider medals, I mostly show licensed.

[Perfect_Pony]

I guess in my immediate area there are SO MANY recognized shows within 30-45 minute drive, most people I know do the math and in the big picture it’s not really that much more money to just go to the recognized shows. I would rather have my qualifying scores recognized (if I earned them), than not. What would the additional cost be? At most an extra $100 for the day?

It’s not like the H/J shows where a schooling show will cost you a hundred bucks or so, and going to a weekend rated show is a couple thousand or more!

I should say, there are very few schooling dressage shows in my immediate area compared to recognized shows, so if you are going to take the time to haul 45 minutes or more to show in 2 classes you might as well make it count. I supposed if you live in an area flush with schooling shows and have to make a big effort to get to the recognized shows, that would make the decision easier.

[MysticOakRanch]

Saddle Fitter - that is interesting, there is a big difference in show fees region to region! The cheapest class fees I’ve seen are $45 - most of our shows are $50 to 55 for a class, and higher for FEI classes - and of course, higher for USDF Q classes. Our office fees range from nothing (love those shows) up to $35/horse and rider - if you have 2 riders on the horse over the weekend, you pay the office fee twice. Then many of our shows charge a haul-in fee if you don’t pay for stabling. Haul in is generally $25 to $35/day. Stabling is generally $125 to $200/weekend (no daily fee).

So, for someone watching their $$$ and doing everything they can to make it affordable - showing 2 classes over 2 days (aka PSG) will cost about $237 plus gas - that is with no stall, no coach, doing your own grooming. For someone showing 4 Training level classes over 2 days, it is going to cost $327 plus gas - again, not counting coaching, grooming, etc. That is a lot of money:eek:

Also interesting to note - in Cali, even schooling shows have to charge drug fees:confused: We have both USDF and CFDA drug fees. I will say, I’m one person who gets their money’s worth out of drug fees - my horse seems to get drug tested everytime we venture out - some shows, twice over two days:eek:

[Perfect_Pony]

@MysticOakRanch;6708087

For someone showing 4 Training level classes over 2 days, it is going to cost $327 plus gas - again, not counting coaching, grooming, etc. That is a lot of money:eek:

You know I grew up dirt poor, so I know a lot of money vs not a lot of money. But in context of trying to own a horse in the immediate Bay Area that is nothing. I live in the land of $800 board, $750 training, $200 shoeing, and $100 for a vet to glance in your horse’s general direction on his weekly barn visit

[MysticOakRanch]

[QUOTE=Perfect Pony;6708104]
You know I grew up dirt poor, so I know a lot of money vs not a lot of money. But in context of trying to own a horse in the immediate Bay Area that is nothing. I live in the land of $800 board, $750 training, $200 shoeing, and $100 for a vet to glance in your horse’s general direction on his weekly barn visit ;)[/QUOTE]

Yeah, amazing how different it is in different areas all within NorCal. I keep my horses at home - costs me about $150/month to feed and supplement, shoeing is $85 (basic shoes), vet costs are a bit lower, although not a lot. If you board in the Sac region, it ranges from $350 to $500/month - the most fancy place in the region is $650, and it is posh…

[Velvet]

[QUOTE=Perfect Pony;6707985]
Also, I do think the “rise of the Arabians” is interesting. My half-Arabian pony has more raw talent for dressage than many WB “dressage horses” that would cost 3-4x the price as a 3 year old. And she’s tough as nails, well put together, eats almost nothing, and feels big when you are on her. You also have the option of attending breed shows as well as USDF shows. I think it really shows that there IS movement towards smaller, cheaper and often easier (physically) to ride and typically more sound horses.[/QUOTE]

I agree that THESE days they have improved SOME of the Arabs. Mostly by cross breeding them and getting rid of the 80’s flat croup that nearly killed the breed.

Yet another time in human history when “fashion” was lauded over function and nearly killed a breed. Happens with dogs all the time. Just look at what they’ve done to the formerly beautiful German Shepherds. So sad we we get that worked up and inbreed that much. It’s happening in WBs, too. Some of it works, some of it is a dismal failure and even when it works, somewhere down the line all that line breeding creates genetic flaws and freaks.

[Perfect_Pony]

[QUOTE=Velvet;6708352]
Just look at what they’ve done to the formerly beautiful German Shepherds. So sad we we get that worked up and inbreed that much. It’s happening in WBs, too. Some of it works, some of it is a dismal failure and even when it works, somewhere down the line all that line breeding creates genetic flaws and freaks.[/QUOTE]

Funny you would mention GSD breeding. The ridiculous walk dressage breeders are breeding for reminds me of a German Shepherd in some horses. Freakishly “uphill” with this big overtrack and angulated hind leg. I cannot see how that would be desirable for long term soundness.

[bort84]

[QUOTE=Perfect Pony;6708388]
Funny you would mention GSD breeding. The ridiculous walk dressage breeders are breeding for reminds me of a German Shepherd in some horses. Freakishly “uphill” with this big overtrack and angulated hind leg. I cannot see how that would be desirable for long term soundness.[/QUOTE]

I honestly hate the overdone overtrack walk… Moderation! I see so many horses that are just built funky and move funky in order to have that giant walk - it’s like their hind ends have gotten a little too loose sometimes. I know of one gelding that people just gush over his walk, but when you try to get him to shorten his stride at all at the walk, he pretty much can’t do it (it feels like trying to get a walking horse to do a normal or collected walk). His trot is super nifty and big, but that conformation that gives him a huge walk and trot makes his canter a bit strange. He scores pretty well (lower levels) because he gets huge walk and trot scores, but it’s not a horse I would ever want to own or try to take above 2nd level.

Personally, my little off brand guy does lack in some areas compared to the big guys (mainly in huge extensions, but he’s a very nice mover for a little guy). But he’s far easier to collect, has an AMAZING work ethic, fits in any trailer, is an air fern, and is just so easy to teach the hard stuff: he’s loving dressage the more we introduce the harder movements (“Half pass? Sure thing boss. Anything to get out of doing those booooring 20 meter circles!” haha). Granted, my background is in arabs and ASBs, so I’m drawn to a lighter, hotter type. There are many WBs out there I LOVE, but it will be a long time before I can afford the ones I like or before other people are bringing theirs to me to work and show, haha.

There is a Spanish barn near me, and though they are certainly NOT a cheap alternative to WBs, their riders just love how easy, rideable, and uncomplicated they tend to be. Those huge moving WBs aren’t cheap or easy and it’s great for people to have alternatives = )

[poltroon]

[QUOTE=DownYonder;6707719]
I am curious to see how much the horse industry is affected when we go off the fiscal cliff. Most of the folks supporting the recognized horse show circuits - esp. those who go to Florida for the winter - are in the upper middle to high income brackets. Horse related expenditures WILL be affected if their federal income taxes increase from the projected $3500 (average increase for those in the $65K - $108K per year income range) to $14,000 or more (average increase for those in the $108K to $500K income range). I know someone who said her and her husband’s anticipated tax increase is $50,000! :eek: They are in a pretty high income bracket (he is a physician, she is an attorney), and she said there will be no Florida show circuit this year for her or her two horses, and probably no recognized competitions at all for the foreseeable future.[/QUOTE]

To pay an extra $50,000 in federal income tax, they’d have to be grossing in the neighborhood of $1.5 million a year. Cry me a river.

It is more likely to affect the more moderate income riders, who would potentially be paying a few thousand more in tax when that’s a substantial part of their disposable income. Having lower taxes for the last two years has made everything a little easier, it’s true.

[JLR1]

I can attest to the growth of Arabian dressage horses in both the breed and open shows. I am in AZ the Mecca for Arabians! My purebred gelding just moved up to second level and is competitive in the Open shows…and yup he is barefoot too.

[DownYonder]

[QUOTE=poltroon;6708440]
To pay an extra $50,000 in federal income tax, they’d have to be grossing in the neighborhood of $1.5 million a year. Cry me a river. :D[/QUOTE]

According to this chart from MSN Money, families with taxable income of $1.5 million a year would be hit with over $120,000 in additional income tax. http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=b84b065d-9ae9-452d-92a7-4a369489044a

@poltroon;6708440

It is more likely to affect the more moderate income riders, who would potentially be paying a few thousand more in tax when that’s a substantial part of their disposable income. Having lower taxes for the last two years has made everything a little easier, it’s true.

Agree with this. But look at the chart - there are a BOATLOAD of folks out there in horse sport with taxable incomes between $65K and $108K. Their taxes would increase by an average of $3500. There are also quite a few people supporting horse sport with taxable incomes over $108K - a great many professional couples earn at least this much. Their taxes will increase an average of $14,000. For most people, an increase in taxes means less money to spend on other things, and cutting back on horse expenditures - including showing, spending the winter in FL, etc., will no doubt be high on the list for many of them.

[DownYonder]

And there is also the downstream effect when people have less discretionary funds to spend on competing, traveling to FL for training or showing, etc. Many others are also affected by the downturn in business - trainers, vets, farriers, chiropractors and massage therapists, feed, hay and shaving vendors, barns who rent stalls for the season, show facilities, utility companies, gas stations, trailering/shipping services, hotels, condo rentals, restaurants, hair and nail salons, shops of all kinds, etc., etc., etc. It will go far beyond the folks who can just no longer afford to show.

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=DownYonder;6707719]
I am curious to see how much the horse industry is affected when we go off the fiscal cliff. Most of the folks supporting the recognized horse show circuits - esp. those who go to Florida for the winter - are in the upper middle to high income brackets. Horse related expenditures WILL be affected if their federal income taxes increase from the projected $3500 (average increase for those in the $65K - $108K per year income range) to $14,000 or more (average increase for those in the $108K to $500K income range). I know someone who said her and her husband’s anticipated tax increase is $50,000! :eek: They are in a pretty high income bracket (he is a physician, she is an attorney), and she said there will be no Florida show circuit this year for her or her two horses, and probably no recognized competitions at all for the foreseeable future.[/QUOTE]

OK, here we go with math again.

If you average in the increase a person who makes $108k with someone who makes FIVE TIMES that, the rate of increase will look disproportionately high for the $108k individual and disproportionately low for the $500k individual. It is a stupid statistical tool to use for this purpose.

Let’s just really let it roll and average my potential tax increase with Bill Gate’s potential tax increase and go, “OMG! TAXES ARE GOING TO GO UP BY $2,000,000,000 PER PERSON ON AVERAGE!”

When I made $160k a year I paid $80k a year in taxes and still managed to spend $40k a year on horses. A $5k tax hike would not have affected me; I was earning $3,500 a week.

[meupatdoes]

@DownYonder;6708926

According to this chart from MSN Money, families with taxable income of $1.5 million a year would be hit with over $120,000 in additional income tax. http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=b84b065d-9ae9-452d-92a7-4a369489044a

Look at your own chart and remember how averages work.

“$520,000 and above” includes Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg.
They and their super rich friends make so exponentially much more than everyone else in their bracket that they will significantly pull up the average for everyone else.

It is like the old economics joke: When Bill Gates walks into a bar the average wealth of everyone in the room shoots up to $5,000,000,000.00. The same would logically be true if you do the same analysis for average taxes paid by everyone in the bar. As soon as Bill Gates leaves again, the numbers look totally different.

[SendenHorse]

I am also showing a half arabian in dressage (not breed shows) and he also enjoys lateral work… a little too much… He isn’t typical of the breed in conformation in my opinion.

[poltroon]

@DownYonder;6708926

According to this chart from MSN Money, families with taxable income of $1.5 million a year would be hit with over $120,000 in additional income tax. http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=b84b065d-9ae9-452d-92a7-4a369489044a

As meupatdoes points out, that’s fun with averages. But the correct math is done this way: ~$44,000 is 3% of what number? which is in the neighborhood of $1.5 million.

And that’s 1.5 million past $300,000, and past deductions for mortgage interest and the like.

I’ve been in the top taxpayer bracket… though at a considerably lower level. Trust me when I say that it’s far easier to write the checks then and to ride all you want than it is to write the IRS checks when you’re in the median bracket.

Agree with this. But look at the chart - there are a BOATLOAD of folks out there in horse sport with taxable incomes between $65K and $108K. Their taxes would increase by an average of $3500. There are also quite a few people supporting horse sport with taxable incomes over $108K - a great many professional couples earn at least this much. Their taxes will increase an average of $14,000. For most people, an increase in taxes means less money to spend on other things, and cutting back on horse expenditures - including showing, spending the winter in FL, etc., will no doubt be high on the list for many of them.

For sure that will hurt (myself included). No economist thinks austerity is the right path for us at this point. Someone did a comparison recently of Britain and the US. Britain did austerity; the US did a tapering of stimulus. Britain has had much more economic pain and yet the US has actually done better on lowering the deficit. The middle income tax cuts that both parties agree on helps all taxpayers, and I hope they will pass.

For myself, I certainly have shown less and done fewer lessons than I’d like due to finances. The main incentive in my area for unrecognized shows isn’t the cost of the classes, but the cost of the memberships, so once I do one recognized show I’m much more likely to do another.

It is really interesting to see that Florida has continued to see growth; I would not have expected that.

[DownYonder]

OK, so I guess MSN Money doesn’t know nearly as much about money, taxes, the impending fiscal cliff, etc., as meupatdoes and Poltroon. :lol:

Fact still remains - it is upper middle class and high income families who are the financial backbone of most horse sports - including dressage. When their taxes go up, they will not be able to support those endeavors as much. And everyone downstream will feel the effect.

[Equibrit]

Southern migration of riders from the Northeast and the weather were not mentioned. The year round activity in region 3 would tend to skew the figures.

[MysticOakRanch]

[QUOTE=DownYonder;6709512]
OK, so I guess MSN Money doesn’t know nearly as much about money, taxes, the impending fiscal cliff, etc., as meupatdoes and Poltroon. :lol:

Fact still remains - it is upper middle class and high income families who are the financial backbone of most horse sports - including dressage. When their taxes go up, they will not be able to support those endeavors as much. And everyone downstream will feel the effect.[/QUOTE]

DY, I don’t think that is really a fair statement. Poltroon and menu are right - and are repeating exactly what MSN reports - it is an average number. So someone who makes $450,000 might pay an extra $12,000 and someone making $8 million pays an extra $240,000 in taxes - the average increase in taxes for those two people is $126,000. But the person in the $450k household isn’t paying an extra $126,000, they are paying an extra $12,000. So MSN is right - but so are the two posters that point out these are averages.

And while you are correct that the person who makes $4.5 million annually will spend more on dressage (grooms, show fees, trainers, tack, supplements, etc), and will most likely show at at Wellington and support that show circuit, for everyone ONE of those people, there are going to be 400 of the people in a much lower income bracket (say under $150k annually) who are going to spend a much lesser amount individually, but in total, will probably still spend more on the horse industry then that one wealthy individual.

That is the middle income, often lower level rider, core base that we keep talking about - they may not individually spend a ton of money, but there are SO many of them (us) that it keeps the sport afloat. You won’t see those (us) at Wellington, but we do show at our local rated and schooling shows, we keep the local trainers employed, we ride one or two clinics annually and contribute to the big name people that way. We fill up the non-FEI classes at the shows. We buy a new saddle once every 7 or 8 years, a new bride every 4 or 5 years, so we aren’t all that important as a single person - but lump us all together, and we still make up a LOT of money and support to the horse world. We are also the volunteers that keep the shows running, the local GMOs running, etc.

We spend a much higher % of our discretionary income then the $4.5 million dollar rider - so if you talk pure numbers in %, we might spend 10% of our discretionary income on horses every year, while the high-wealth owner spends 3%. So an increase in taxes hits us differently then it hits the high income owner.

BOTH parties are important to the sport, no doubt about it.

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=DownYonder;6709512]
OK, so I guess MSN Money doesn’t know nearly as much about money, taxes, the impending fiscal cliff, etc., as meupatdoes and Poltroon. :lol:[/QUOTE]

MSN Money knows exactly the same amount about money, taxes, and the “impending” fiscal cliff regardless of whether individual readers can correctly interpret the data or not.