I’m wondering what people love and hate about our sport’s governing body.
I think the Group membership structure is great. It helps provide a more affordable rated show membership for people who know they/their horse will not be winning any big regional/national shows such that a full Participating membership and the extra money would be required.
And my local Dressage society/group seems to put on regular clinics and educational events–I can’t really tell how much support they get from USDF for that, but certainly the combination of local society membership/USDF Group membership is a good value.
I am fed up with and walking away from USEF to spend more time/money supporting local efforts that actually care about riders. I don’t mind that my local memberships will continue to support USDF. And I suspect, if I ever rejoin USEF again, it will be because I want more access to the USDF benefits in rated showing (e.g. rider awards).
Yeah, I think the two groups is a ton of overhead, and yet again I understand the USEF managing the international aspects and pooling money from not only dressage, but eventing and especially the hunters and jumpers–which contribute a ton to the USEF. I just feel like having local GMOs asking for more and more to support themselves (with good programs) and then the USDF taking a big chunk puts the GMO between a rock and a hard place. They have to raise their dues, which means they often lose people who want awards and will simply pay on the USDF–which is not fair, and not supporting the local efforts.
It depends on where you are. Since it is based on using volunteers the politics can become very annoying and unprofessional.
First USDF is NOT the governing body. They are a virus that got themselves implanted into the true national governing body in order to suck more money out of the people who participate in dressage shows. They have not done a good job of actually supporting their purported mission of Education since they became a mechanism to define qualification based on show criteria rather than whether someone could actually ride and train. They proclaim their wonderfulness while brow beating the local GMOs to put up the actual money and time and volunteers to run the USDF sanctioned events. Do they offer money? Yes… a pittance to what those events actually cost the GMO to host them. Who getst the glory? Not the sponsoring GMO or their people.
And now we are forced, if we want to show, to further support a useless appendage by having dual horse registrations and rider/owner membership. Another way to suck money out of the AA who supports much of the equine related sports/business in this country (regardless of discipline) I was a member of USDF at the beginning… when it meant something and was useful. I haven’t chosen to be a Participating member in many years because of what I stated above. I am a Lifetime member of USEF. I support my local GMO chapter(s) because I know they do the brunt of the work. But not the org itself.
Sorry to say that I have to agree with Digihorse on this one.
Let me be clear, the USDF brings up all things dressage to USEF. They work in conjunction on many, many things. The USDF does tend to govern what happens in the US, even to the point of the awards, providing the initial (and now mandatory) training for judges, and certifying instructors. So, they are the governing agency, for dressage, in pretty much every way possible. Now, as far as the rest of what you said? I could NOT agree MORE!!!
I like the structure with USDF organizing a few major symposiums and educational activities at a national level but leaving most of the non-showing acitivity up to local GMO’s. I like the amount of freedom that GMO’s have about how to structure themselves (i.e. in my region there are a couple or really large conglomerate-GMO’s which are made up of multiple chapters, and other smaller single-chapter GMO’s.
In general, I like what USDF is doing with the show rules and the tests. These are A LOT of work, and form a cohesive system. I know that the rules and tests are actually published by USEF, and I think USEF does a final vote on such things. But it is my impression that the actual work of coming up with the ideas and the exact wording is mostly USDF.
I really LOVE the fact that USDF has kept the levels and different venues in dressage as one cohesive continuum so that backyard beginners are judged by the rules and standards as the olympic hopefuls. I know this is a controversial one because some low level riders feel that it makes it hard for them or their horses to feel sucessful. But overall, I think it really helps us to stick to the same training principles and to feel that we are all part of the same sport.
I think the L program and judges training is EXCELLENT. Again, the final word on this is chanelled through USEF, but I think the real work is done by USDF. Sure, we all have a few gripes about certain marks or judges, but overall, I think the quality of judging is top-notch. Judges are fair, clear and well trained. They seem to have a clear understanding of their job which allows them to carry it out smoothly and to relate well to the competitor, management and public.
I like the way that USEF/USDF is flexible about how shows are run - some by GMO’s, some by for-profit trainers and barns, and both models are able to be successful.
I think that for a major national organization, the USDF judges, officers, and other important people are quite accessible. We know their names and faces. And they are in touch with what is going on at the local and lower levels.
I don’t like, or understand why there is so much overlap between USEF and USDF. USEF seems to publish and take credit for much of USDF’s hard work. For the most part, I see no benefit to having out rule books, judge’s training, show shchedules, etc. published by a mega-organization that also does Reining, Hunter-Jumpers, etc. There might be some value to coordinating some of the high-performance activities (Olympic teams, etc.) but I don’t see the value for the average, or national-only competitor.
[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8548248]
I think the Group membership structure is great. It helps provide a more affordable rated show membership for people who know they/their horse will not be winning any big regional/national shows such that a full Participating membership and the extra money would be required.[/QUOTE]
I think I follow your points, and you must be in an area like CA, where there are shows “rated” for state championships that are not USEF/USDF recognized. We don’t have anything like that near me. Our AZ shows are either schooling shows or fully recognized shows, one or the other, and there’s nothing in between.
But there’s an implication in your comments that people who know their horses won’t be winning any big regional/national shows, should find spending the money to be in the fully recognized shows unnecessary. And I don’t think, for most competitors, anfinances/budget figuring heavily into it
Showing up and doing better (and getting a score that’s higher) than the previous ride is win enough for a lot ofa big or prestigious recognized show, or, at Regionals. A lot of us “know” we aren’t winning anything big, but we do it anyway.
[QUOTE=Velvet;8548543]
Yeah, I think the two groups is a ton of overhead, and yet again I understand the USEF managing the international aspects and pooling money from not only dressage, but eventing and especially the hunters and jumpers–which contribute a ton to the USEF. I just feel like having local GMOs asking for more and more to support themselves (with good programs) and then the USDF taking a big chunk puts the GMO between a rock and a hard place. They have to raise their dues, which means they often lose people who want awards and will simply pay on the USDF–which is not fair, and not supporting the local efforts.[/QUOTE]
The only thing USDF takes from local GMOs is the $20 membership fee… if the GMO holds a University session, there is a $35 fee… but I cannot think of anything else USDF takes from the GMOs…
That said, do I feel the GMOs should have more monetary support from USDF? Yes. IMO, USDF members should be required to be members of a GMO. That would not only bring in more money to the GMOs, but also more ideas, more people! Right now, in my area, many upper level riders do not belong to the GMO because they feel they can get nothing of value from us - that we cater to the lower levels. (which is not true, but it is true that most of our members ride below 2nd level.)
Silverbridge, I think Halt Near X was referring to the fact that you can show at recognized shows with only your Group membership (not a participating membership) if you don’t care about national level awards.
[QUOTE=lorilu;8549329]
Silverbridge, I think Halt Near X was referring to the fact that you can show at recognized shows with only your Group membership (not a participating membership) if you don’t care about national level awards.[/QUOTE]
Thanks. I didn’t get that! Oops. My apologies
I have more disdain for my local GMO than USDF!
There is much I appreciate about the USDF.
What I don’t like is that I feel that their awards, granting system, etc. are geared towards people with the money to show/lesson/clinic regularly, and on nice horses. I often feel that these same people could already afford the Jr, YR, AA and pro opportunities that the USDF subsidizes. Also, these opportunities “pad resumes” and don’t usually help the general population.
I also dislike that the USDF has likened their programs to “attending University”. It is an interesting marketing scheme but dressage is a hobby for most jrs, YRs, and AAs. No one pays to go to University to master a hobby unless one is very wealthy.
I am not a fan of the USDF certification program. I’ve known several instructors who have graduated from these programs and while they made it through the heavily didactic/score-gaining portion of the program, they are not good trainers. Similarly, IMO the “L” program is a good program but has produced many “didactic” trainees who are not good judges/let the “judge” thing to to their heads. Many of these people borrow/rent horses to get the scores to move up in the judging ranks. Often for these people, it’s not about the money, it’s about the “creds”. Lots of people who have less ego don’t have the money or the horse rental connections to make it through the judging levels, but might be better judges.
I appreciate much about the USDF, but I don’t think they represent “me”.
I do wish your horses and rider number was the same with USDF as it is USHJA. Would make things a whole lot easier.
The governance structure can be a little confusing. For starters, “national governing body” is a specific term, and the USDF (United States Dressage Federation) is not an NGB. Here, in a nutshell, is how it works.
- A sport’s NGB is the organization that makes the rules for play/competition in that country. In the USA, the equestrian NGB is the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF). The USEF is the equestrian NGB vis-a-vis the United States Olympic Committee. The USEF is also the USA’s representative to the equestrian international sport federation, the FEI.
As our NGB, the USEF also bears the responsibility for selecting and fielding teams for international competition.
- Under the USEF’s NGB umbrella there are “affiliated” (another official designation) discipline and breed organizations. The United States Hunter Jumper Association, for instance, is the USEF hunter/jumper affiliate organization. The USDF is the USEF affiliate for dressage.
Prior to the USDF’s founding in 1973, dressage as a sport was the largely ignored stepchild of the USEF’s predecessor, the American Horse Shows Association (AHSA). Pockets of interest in dressage existed in the US, and there were some clubs, such as the California Dressage Society; but these were local/regional in nature and lacked the numbers to exert any real influence on a national level. Realizing that there is strength in numbers, representatives of these clubs banded together to establish a federation, to pool resources and to strengthen their influence with the AHSA. That was the founding of the USDF, which was itself formed as an umbrella organization over the clubs, which became known as group-member organizations, or GMOs.
There were no standardized national “learner” judge-training programs, certification programs for instructors, programs for youth or amateurs, or breed-recognition programs for dressage before USDF members worked to establish them. There were no regional dressage championships. There was no education or recognition program for dressage sport-horse breeders and handlers. With one short-lived exception, there was no national championships for dressage at all levels. All of these programs grew out of initiatives created by USDF members and other supporters, like the late Maj. Anders Lindgren of Sweden, and voted on by the USDF member delegates to the USDF Board of Governors.
All of this is not to say that the various organizations and their workings are without room for improvement. If you’ve ever attended a USDF convention, you know that there are plenty of committed members who argue passionately and often persuasively for change. As a result of their efforts, a lot has changed over the years and will continue to evolve. Because of the USEF-USDF relationship, there is a “trickle up” effect of views and opinions, bolstered by the USEF Dressage Committee’s meeting and open forums held as part of the USDF convention. But the two organizations’ roles are fundamentally quite different. The USEF concerns itself with governance, while the USDF’s primary missions are education, recognition, and promotion of dressage.
Hope this is helpful.
Jennifer Bryant
Editor, USDF Connection
[QUOTE=flynride;8549915]
…Here, in a nutshell, is how it works.
- A sport’s NGB is the organization that makes the rules for play/competition in that country. In the USA, the equestrian NGB is the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF). The USEF is the equestrian NGB vis-a-vis the United States Olympic Committee. The USEF is also the USA’s representative to the equestrian international sport federation, the FEI.
As our NGB, the USEF also bears the responsibility for selecting and fielding teams for international competition.
- Under the USEF’s NGB umbrella there are “affiliated” (another official designation) discipline …The USDF is the USEF affiliate for dressage.
Prior to the USDF’s founding in 1973, dressage as a sport was the largely ignored stepchild of the USEF’s predecessor, the American Horse Shows Association (AHSA). Pockets of interest in dressage existed in the US, and there were some clubs, such as the California Dressage Society; but these were local/regional in nature and lacked the numbers to exert any real influence on a national level. Realizing that there is strength in numbers, representatives of these clubs banded together to establish a federation, to pool resources and to strengthen their influence with the AHSA. That was the founding of the USDF, which was itself formed as an umbrella organization over the clubs, which became known as group-member organizations, or GMOs.
There were no standardized national “learner” judge-training programs, certification programs for instructors, programs for youth or amateurs, or breed-recognition programs for dressage before USDF members worked to establish them. There were no regional dressage championships. There was no education or recognition program for dressage sport-horse breeders and handlers. With one short-lived exception, there was no national championships for dressage at all levels. All of these programs grew out of initiatives created by USDF members and other supporters, like the late Maj. Anders Lindgren of Sweden, and voted on by the USDF member delegates to the USDF Board of Governors.
…
Hope this is helpful.
Jennifer Bryant
Editor, USDF Connection[/QUOTE]
I highlighted the salient points of what the USDF is focusing on…COMPETITION.
"Prior to the USDF’s founding in 1973, dressage as a sport was the largely ignored stepchild of the USEF’s predecessor, the American Horse Shows Association (AHSA)."…[And this is implies that somehow this is a bad thing?]
In the days of Lowell Boomer, Vi Hopkins the focus was on education.
I just spent 3 months of intensive training with a Spanish Chief Master Rider from the Spanish School at Jerez. We were having a discussion on equestrian culture in the US vs in Europe. His comment, (and I’m close to direct quote) is that in the US people can only think of dressage solely in terms of competition.
Why??? Perhaps the USDF focus has some responsibility for shaping this popular perception.
In contrast, his observation is that the equestrian culture in Europe focuses more on learning to ride as an art…kind of like learning music, dance, or song. True, some people enter “piano competitions,” but that is the minority of those people studying piano.
As far as the fact that 40 years ago, there was little focus on dressage…well, that is a result of the US’s history as a British colony…there was little historical emphasis on “dressage” in England. The traditions were more a country tradition of jumping, cross-country riding and fox-hunting.
In contrast, in the continent, was there an extensive historical tradition of royal schools focusing on riding as art. Especially in France, Portugal and Spain.
The world has gotten much smaller as communication tools have given us instant access to world events. Dressage would have come to the US…but again, the “stuff” that makes news is competition.
The USDF has given very little coverage of the events that focus on strictly the artistic aspects of “Riding as Art”…eg., Crinières d’Or, or SICAB.
As a matter of fact the leadership of USDF looks down its collective nose at this type of riding and calls it “circus riding”…a pejorative term in their POV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrWn9-Wkgj8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Div18hydTGg
I personally like to learn from anyone who produces a soft, happy, healthy curious horse…regardless of the discipline.
Dressage competitions are only one small facet of equestrian culture…a very varied and interesting discipline at whose heart fundamentally resides the study of the psychology of the horse.
I have mixed feelings… As a long time PM, I am disappointed with USDF because it treats everything west of the Mississippi as non-existent (or not important). Most national programs are east - no need rehashing the list of those programs/championships/events, USDF is well aware of the issue. And many of us in regions 6 and 7 are not happy with USDF right now because of this issue.
Thank goodness my GMO is large and active - they try to fill in the void left by non-support from then national organization.
OTOH, I truly appreciate some of the educational programs - I think the L program is outstanding. For those who say they know trainers who have graduated and are not good trainers - this is not a trainer program! Many other countries are looking to USDF’s L Program as a model for training future judges! I also appreciate that USDF allows AUDITORS in this program - if you’ve ever looked into the USEF judge’s programs (r, R, S), they allow NO auditors. Which makes me feel that USDF is more focused on educating members.
I also appreciate many of their other education programs - there is a lot of work put into these programs, both by USDF staff and by USDF Faculty. I’ve been through the L Program (both as Participant and organizer) Young Horse Developing program (really interesting!), the DSHB Judge’s program (just the first part of it), the FEI Trainers Conference (once - appreciate they FINALLY brought it back to the West Coast, but during the work week so I can’t go), and audited Instructor Certification. I just recently hosted Upgrade Your Judge’s Eye, and that was also a great program. I thought all these programs had a lot of excellent information, and I learned a lot from these programs.
Yes, the focus is on competition - but look at the above list - they do support education - the problem is, in many cases, your GMO must be the organizer (other then FEI Trainers), so it requires a lot of work from the grass roots level.
I do think the GMO membership option gives you a lot of bang for the buck - basically $20 goes to USDF, and for that you get show recognition, a monthly magazine, and access to educational events IF your GMO hosts them. That really isn’t a lot of money.
All in all, I think USEF does less for us, and charges us more. I’m not quite sure what I’m getting for that membership fee - other then a magazine that is fairly useless, and show recognition (again). I’ve always felt USEF was more into hunter/jumpers and breed specific shows (Arab, Morgan, etc). Their whole year end point system really weighs toward breed shows.
And if I had to vote my support for one organization - it would be my own GMO, CDS! I feel like I get more value from them:D And pretty sure CDS has been around longer then USDF by several years!
It’s funny to me when people decry the attention given to dressage showing versus everthing else dressage should be, yet provide no US example or ambassadorship for what they’d prefer people emulate.
It’s only natural that people in the public eye are discussed and emulated and celebrated. People know who Steffen Peters is because what he does is on view. Ninety percent of the Internet experts on pure dressage and happy athletes and classical perfection don’t even reveal their LOCATION. Let alone a name or horse name or photo or video.
It might improve things if more people who loathe competition, and hate what they say dressage is today, stood up for their POV more visibly and led by example. The Baroque Equestrian Games and Institute is one example of somebody putting herself out there publicly and providing an alternative to the standard show environment. Agree or disagree with what they profess, at least it’s quantifiable and identifiable. Maybe the classicists need more of that.
Instead the classical purists are for the most part too anonymous and too ambiguous to carry much weight within the discipline as a whole. That doesn’t even address the inherent condescension which is also a problem.
People find more appeal in the fun atmosphere and the productive riding they can actually see.
Thank you “flynride” for “Just the facts, Mam”. And they are quite correct.
However, I do agree with some posters re:certification and the L program. But this happens in any testing. We all know the straight A student who can’t operate a can opener.
What wears on the average Amateur rider are the endless fees. Supporting our local GMO and then USDF, and if you are certified the on going fees for maintaining your standing, then top that with the USEF annual dues, and depending on where you are you can pay up to $200. And that’s without setting foot onto a showground, or clinic.
Most of these organizations start with a small office staff, and then like Topsy they grow. As do their expenses.
