PDA

View Full Version : What Do You Think About The Requirement



MyCatRules
Sep. 23, 2009, 02:13 PM
That all horses shown in Championship shows must be stabled on the show grounds? Will it solve anything? It brings more money to show management, which means it costs more to show. And for some people, it means too much stress on their horse, so they won't compete? Thoughts? Is it a good change or a bad change to the show world?

BaroquePony
Sep. 23, 2009, 02:18 PM
What is th reasoning behind this type of mandatory requiement?

SGray
Sep. 23, 2009, 02:19 PM
I think it is to aid enforcement of the rule re only competitor may ride the horse at Champ. show

mickeydoodle
Sep. 23, 2009, 04:06 PM
Sort of like a CDI. Championships are "higher stakes" and having all horses on the grounds means for better, more consistent rule enforcement. CDI horses have to be inside a security enclosure (usually a plastic fence).

Gloria
Sep. 23, 2009, 04:39 PM
Shows committees have to pay to use the facility and the income from classes are not enough. To run the shows, they have to charge stall fees and have enough horses to stable there. If they don't do that, there will not be shows.

As a matter of fact, I have not been to any non-shooling shows where stabling at the show ground is not required.

MyCatRules
Sep. 23, 2009, 06:25 PM
I think it is to aid enforcement of the rule re only competitor may ride the horse at Champ. show

I think this is the main reason provided for the requirement. As for making money, many shows give the option of a trailer-in fee in lieu of stabling. My biggest question on the "mandatory stabled" rule is - does this limit some people whose horses are not comfortable in a stall, or in a strange stall? Other concerns: What about the higher risk of viral contact? What about being stabled in a bad situation - ie next to a cribber, kicker, etc? What about horses with allergies - risk of exposure to allergen food, bedding... It opens up many questions.

evenstar
Sep. 23, 2009, 07:15 PM
As a matter of fact, I have not been to any non-shooling shows where stabling at the show ground is not required.

That's interesting. Around here, you can trailer in for the day at a recognized show. Of course, there is a fee for the privilege of parking your horse in your trailer for the day...:lol:

angel
Sep. 23, 2009, 10:22 PM
Anyone serious enough about showing to be eligible to ride a Championship show, would want to stay on the show grounds. Most horses, if they are campaigned, settle in fairly well. I feel that I could not have done my best had I not stayed on the show grounds. First few shows when I began showing, I did try to go the economy route and just trailer in. Never again! I WANT that advantage of the horse becoming comfortable because then they will do better.

J-Lu
Sep. 23, 2009, 10:22 PM
Actually, I think it keeps all participants on the same page...housed away from home and under show rules. I don't have a problem with this at championship classes (says someone who housed her horse, oh, 15 minutes from home for championship classes).

ETA: good point, angel.

Janet
Sep. 23, 2009, 10:59 PM
As a matter of fact, I have not been to any non-shooling shows where stabling at the show ground is not required.

Must be regional. Around here it is SOP to have ship-ins as well as stabled horses. In fact there is at least one recognized show which has a very small number of stalls- far fewer than the typical number of entries.

Zevida
Sep. 23, 2009, 11:38 PM
Anyone serious enough about showing to be eligible to ride a Championship show, would want to stay on the show grounds.

Well that's silly. When I was competing I was very serious and I much preferred to trailer-in for shows and would have trailered-in to championships if they had been close enough.


Must be regional. Around here it is SOP to have ship-ins as well as stabled horses.

Definitely regional. I moved from Region 1 to Region 9 and was pretty shocked to find that a lot of people stable for schooling shows and trailer-ins for recognized is pretty much unheard of. I'm beginning to doubt I'll be able to afford to show here ever. Part of it is the distance, part of it is the facilities (and room, or lack thereof, to accommodate trailer-ins) and part of it is just the culture of the region.

nhwr
Sep. 23, 2009, 11:40 PM
This would be more of a burden than a boon to show management, not that USEF considers such issues when making decisions. Most facilities simply can't afford to have enough vacant stalls just waiting around for competitors to occupy. So management has to lease portable stalls. In most cases stall fees are at best break even.

I suspect this has more to do with care, custody and control issues than anything else.

Mary in Area 1
Sep. 24, 2009, 12:07 AM
Personally, I just think the USDF should institute a rule, like eventing, where only the rider of record at the show may ride the horse while at the show, except to hack on a loose rein.

That would really make dressage much more fair.

ideayoda
Sep. 24, 2009, 11:23 AM
There is such a rule (for championships)....and usEf is the governing body.

Mary in Area 1
Sep. 24, 2009, 12:30 PM
No, I mean for ALL dressage shows and classes, not just Championships.

Janet
Sep. 24, 2009, 12:37 PM
No, I mean for ALL dressage shows and classes, not just Championships.
Someone proposed such a rule change, and it didn't pass.

IIRC, there were two considerations, based on the same premise-
You could have two different riders, riding the same horse in two different classes. It could be two riders of similar proficiency, or Trainer and rider.

A- you don't really want to ban two riders sharing a horse, esp at the lower levels.

B - If you accept A, then it becomes a loophole for the trainer/rider situation, the trainer just enters an extra class (within the constraints of the rules).

In addition, there were a lot of people who did not want to ban the trainer riding the horse.

Gry2Yng
Sep. 24, 2009, 03:54 PM
I think this is the main reason provided for the requirement. As for making money, many shows give the option of a trailer-in fee in lieu of stabling. My biggest question on the "mandatory stabled" rule is - does this limit some people whose horses are not comfortable in a stall, or in a strange stall? Other concerns: What about the higher risk of viral contact? What about being stabled in a bad situation - ie next to a cribber, kicker, etc? What about horses with allergies - risk of exposure to allergen food, bedding... It opens up many questions.

Are you serious? Show horses go to shows and stay in stalls at shows. By the time a horse qualifies for a championship, this should be worked out. If you treat your horse like a hot house flower it will become a hot house flower. Yes, I worry about viral contact, kickers and cribbers, allergies, a tornado when my horse is in a tent, but you can't bring your horse home every night for fear of these things. You go to the show and you cope with the situation. IF your neighbor is kicking the stall down, you talk to show management.

MyCatRules
Sep. 24, 2009, 05:33 PM
Someone proposed such a rule change, and it didn't pass.

IIRC, there were two considerations, based on the same premise-
You could have two different riders, riding the same horse in two different classes. It could be two riders of similar proficiency, or Trainer and rider.

A- you don't really want to ban two riders sharing a horse, esp at the lower levels.

B - If you accept A, then it becomes a loophole for the trainer/rider situation, the trainer just enters an extra class (within the constraints of the rules).



We see a lot of situations where two students might each show one or two Training Level classes on the same school horse, so yes, that is a big consideration for regular competitions!

I have heard from a few people around here that didn't feel they could show their young horses at Championships because of the stress of stabling in a strange place four or five days straight. Just made me curious about what others think of the requirement. I'm sure for the more experienced show horses, it is not a huge issue.

For the big show venues, there is sufficient stabling - I'd hate to see what happens at smaller shows because they don't have the facilities (and portable stabling can suck). I guess it varies by region, haul in and show-at-trailer is pretty common in several of the regions, so the stabling requirement does make a difference to some.

dressagerose
Sep. 24, 2009, 05:41 PM
Well, small facilities are not going to be hosting Championship shows, so that isn't an issue. If you are hosting the championships then you have appropriate facilities to do so. You aren't making do.

I'm sure this rule is for enforcing the only one person riding the horse and for drug testing.

Only one person riding is only for championships, so it isn't a factor for smaller shows and venues, where jump out is fine (depending upon the facility).

Having run a lot of shows, it is true that some facilities are more picky about paying for stalls, but I have paid for a stall and then never used it just jumping out of my trailer.

You are mixing several different things in the discussion. The original question was about championships.