PDA

View Full Version : Help Abolish the Mileage Rule



Silver Bells
Mar. 11, 2004, 12:24 PM
The USAEQ is requesting members to send an e-mail the task force that is compiling a report for the July meeting in Lexington.

Zone 2 needs a ton of help! Send emails to
taskforce@usef.org with your thoughts, ideas, and opinions.

Silver Bells
Mar. 11, 2004, 12:24 PM
The USAEQ is requesting members to send an e-mail the task force that is compiling a report for the July meeting in Lexington.

Zone 2 needs a ton of help! Send emails to
taskforce@usef.org with your thoughts, ideas, and opinions.

Seahorsefarmtobe
Mar. 11, 2004, 12:28 PM
What IS the rule?

Ash
Mar. 11, 2004, 12:29 PM
Thanks Silver Bells! I will be sending my email. Three cheers for eliminating the mileage rule! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

************************************************** **********
Every great man has his disciples, and it is always Judas who writes the biography.
--Oscar Wilde

Portia
Mar. 11, 2004, 12:38 PM
It's Article 214 of the USEF rules. Good luck understanding it though. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

USEF Rule 2 (http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleBook/2004/Rule-II.pdf)

P.S. Don't ask me why the mileage rule is in the rule/chapter on Membership rather than the one on Conduct of Competitions; we on the Rules Reorganization Committee still haven't figured that one out. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif We are, however, hoping to rearrange those kind of things during the second round of rule book reorganization.

Seahorsefarmtobe
Mar. 11, 2004, 12:50 PM
Thanks Portia...silly me thought it applied to how many miles a horse could be shipped to a show http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Silver Bells
Mar. 11, 2004, 12:59 PM
Changes could definitely give others a chance to put on some nice horse shows. There are plenty of managers/facilities out there that have been supressed under current rules.

Doubleeez
Mar. 11, 2004, 06:25 PM
Before you jump on the "Abolish the Mileage Rule" bandwagon, take a look at some of our other sports and how they are governed. You surely don't see two NFL football games next door to each other and at the same time. Baseball is another example where the games are scheculed by the governing body. All of them, tennis, soccer,swimming, badminton, car racing, etc are all scheduled so as not to conflict with each other. Why? Because they're all looking for that ever elusive "sponsor dollar" to help pay the way. Equestrian sport is still in its infancy in promoting sponsorships. Take those sponsorships away by leaving the field wide open and you can say good-bye to all those little extras that you enjoy so much at a horse show.
Granted, the mileage rule may need overhauling but for heaven's sake don't abolish it.

noname
Mar. 11, 2004, 09:26 PM
i would have to disagree with you doubleeez. all of this is sort of like free-trade (for you econ people). it seems scary for us to get rid of restrictions, but really it is beneficial for everyone. it allows the big companies to grow to attract the "fancy" crowds and then there will be a place for smaller shows to attract the people that don't want to pay for (or for whatever reason) the big show. prices may even fall for competitiors. horse show management will have to start doing more to swoon the competitiors. it will weed out the good from the bad management because no one is going to want to attend a poor quality show if there is a good quality one nearby. i think all of my econ psycho-babble is coming from the econ class i am required to take this semester, so just ignore me.

main point is....it sounds like a big bad scary wolf, but it really isn't. our industry will only improve by competition. isn't that how we as riders evaluate ourselves and improve (for the most part)?

Erin
Mar. 11, 2004, 10:29 PM
Doubleez, how many competitions out there actually HAVE sponsors and "little extras"? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif It seems that the constant cry around here is that sponsorship hardly exists.

And to the contrary, you often DO see professional sports games next door to each other. Here in the DC area, for example, we have the Redskins and the Ravens, who might be playing games just 30 miles or so away from each other on any given Sunday.

Now, whether or not a city can HAVE a team is decided by the NFL, NHL, MLB, etc. But NYC has three football teams in the general area, and two baseball teams. Chicago has two baseball teams. That's because MLB and the NFL decided the audience was big enough to support two teams. Here in the DC area, the Orioles management is fighting a DC or NOVA baseball team because they fear it will cut into their ticket sales. MLB gets to decide if the audience here is big enough to support two teams.

I don't really think that kind of plan would work with horse shows though. I think of it more like opening up a new restaurant... obviously, if you're opening up a pizza place across the street from another pizza place, if your pizza is considerably better, the other place will suffer. If your pizza is worse, the other place won't lose business to you. If your pizza is equal and there's enough business to sustain two pizza joints, both will survive... if not, one will close. Natural selection at work. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I just don't see sponsorships really factoring into this, since the exhibitors bear most of the costs of showing at this point anyway.

Peggy
Mar. 11, 2004, 11:37 PM
Here's a copy of the email that I got concerning this if anyone wants more info.

Competition Date Approval Task Force
The Federation's President, David J. O‚Connor, has announced that he has appointed an ad hoc committee, the Competition Date Approval Task Force, to study and recommend possible revisions to the rules and procedures whereby the Federation issues recognition and date approvals to Recognized Competitions. The rules dealing with approval of competition dates and mileage between competitions have been debated for years. Some have said that the current rules protect the quality of competition and the sport has grown under them, while others have said the rules have constrained the growth of equestrian sport. The objective of the Task Force is to evaluate the current rules and to make recommendations to the Board at the July 6th meeting in Lexington, Kentucky. For the Task Force to be fully effective, it must hear from every constituency of equestrian sport--from every Affiliate and discipline, from every level of exhibitor, from event organizers and from participants all across the country. USEF members wishing to express a written opinion are invited to do so by mailing to John Long, CEO, United States Equestrian Federation, 4047 Iron Works Parkway, Lexington, KY, 40511 or by e-mailing to taskforce@usef.org. Please include complete contact information with all correspondence. Anonymous submissions will not be accepted. Additionally, the Task Force will schedule several meetings across the country in the spring to seek further input. The Task Force views its assignment as an opportunity to re-shape equestrian sport and looks forward to hearing from you. The task force is composed of the following members: Robert Ridland, Howard Pike, Robert Higgins, Bill Moroney and John Long.

riverswest
Mar. 12, 2004, 02:20 AM
I think there needs to be a mileage rule, but it does need to be revised to include actual miles not radius miles. When a location is 83 radial miles away...but it actually 132 driving miles, something is wrong.

Doubleeez
Mar. 12, 2004, 05:39 AM
Erin -
You write about two national teams playing less than 30 miles apart on the same day in the DC area. BUT - one is a footbsll team and the other is a baseball team - two different sports. And franbkly I think the attendance at each would be better if they were not so close together and on the same day although they may attract different spectators.
And about your pizza analogy. I would have to have my head examined if I chose to open a pizza parlor right across the street from another one, whether it was good or bad. Even if it was bad, it would still drain off some revenue from me, either because of price, loyalty or whatever. Nope, I would choose a place several blocks away where there were no pizza parlors to be able to draw all the pizza eaters in that area.

Boberry
Mar. 12, 2004, 05:56 AM
I've seen a Starbuck's across from a Starbuck's. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and there are shows that keep people for weeks even though they could go somewhere else. Let us ride where we want to ride.

PineTreeFarm
Mar. 12, 2004, 06:06 AM
Be careful what you ask for.
I'm from Long Island. The mileage rule already notes that Long Island has special circumstances. In my area the number of shows declined a bit last year and it looks like the same thing will happen this year. There is a limited 'population' of horses available to show. There are around 10 multi day 'A' shows, the rest are one day shows. The 3'6' divisions do not fill at the one day shows, they do fill(barely) at the 'A' shows. If the mileage rule was eliminated there could be several shows on the same weekend competing for the same number of exhibitors. One outcome might be that both competing shows would not get enough entries to make a profit and both shows would fold. Another outcome could be that only the multi day 'A' shows survive and the one day shows fold. Once that happens the smaller exhibitor gets hurt. A third outcome is less shows but better quality. That might be better for the exhibitors but what about the Pros who make a living off showing?
Silver Bells, I'm thinking you are in NJ. Is that correct?
So yes, the mileage rules need to be revised but local circumstances need to be evaluated and all possible outcomes looked at before a blanket decision gets made.
Sponsership was mentioned. We do have 2-3 shows that have significant sponsership.

cbv
Mar. 12, 2004, 06:09 AM
Doubleeez,

However, in your analogy you get the choice in where you locate your pizza place, based on your best professional judgement of the economic outcomes. Right now that is not the situation with the mileage rule in place.

Lisamarie8
Mar. 12, 2004, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doubleeez:
Erin -
You write about two national teams playing less than 30 miles apart on the same day in the DC area. BUT - one is a footbsll team and the other is a baseball team - two different <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the Ravens and the Redskins are both Football teams

--- For relaxing times, make it Suntory time.

obie
Mar. 12, 2004, 07:23 AM
Thanks for the info - I wrote my letter today in support of eliminating the mileage rule.

Ash
Mar. 12, 2004, 07:25 AM
I agree with Erin and others. Let us show where we want to. The only thing the mileage rule accomplishes is to protect the sub-standard (ie:CRAPPY) A rated shows. We should not have to choose between going to a poorly run show or staying home. Let the show managers compete for my business! Maybe then we would see a little appreciation for our patronage.

************************************************** **********
Every great man has his disciples, and it is always Judas who writes the biography.
--Oscar Wilde

noname
Mar. 12, 2004, 07:40 AM
well said ash!

Black Market Radio
Mar. 12, 2004, 07:46 AM
Ok Doubleeez, how about this one, The Raiders and the 49ers play LESS than 30 miles away from each other here in the Bay Area. Same with the A's and the Giants. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The difference is really apples and oranges. NFL, NBA, MLB, and such are professional sports. They don't oversee the minor leagues, little leagues, Arena Football and such. You can have several little league teams playing at the same park in different diamonds. In my small town alone we have at LEAST 5-6 little league teams. The consumer can choose which little league team he wants his child to play in. Yes, the games are scheduled, but because it's a team sport it's a lot different. There is also "free play" where people just show up and play.

Also with the major team sports, there are differing leagues within. Football has the two leagues, the National Football League and the American Football League. AFC plays NFC, but NFC can't play NFC and AFC can't play AFC. So it's a bit more complicated. So when you watch the Superbowl, an NFC team is playing an AFC team, each having been the champions of their respective leagues, (which have all played the opposing leagues of course) and then culminating into which LEAGUE is champion as well as what team is champion.
(Sorry, hubby is a MAJOR football fan!)

It could be compared more to international competition. FEI dictates when and where international competitions take place.

Devilpups (http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/angelgregory87)
AAAAABABABABABABADADADADADAMAMAMAMAMA- Jennifer and Nichole

[This message was edited by devildog87 on Mar. 12, 2004 at 11:53 AM.]

shamrocks
Mar. 12, 2004, 07:47 AM
I sent my email off to the task force.

Noname is right...I agree with her comparison to a "free market economy".

Show management should have to compete for our business by having well run shows, good footing, quality judges, reasonable fees, easy parking, etc. We should have right to choose to whom we give our business.

Erin
Mar. 12, 2004, 07:57 AM
As lisamarie8 already mentioned, both the Ravens and Redskins are NFL teams.

And I believe attendance at both stadiums is quite healthy... the NFL wouldn't have approved an expansion team in Baltimore if they didn't think there were enough spectators to support two teams.

I really don't think you can compare league play to horse shows, though. Obviously you can't have any Joe Shmoe starting up a football team and wanting to be in the NFL. There's a draft, there are conferences, there are playoffs all of these things have to be pretty carefully planned, which requires a (relatively) small number of teams. Free enterprise within a league sport would just be complete chaos.

Horse shows, to me, seem completely different.

By the way, my college town, which was all of six square blocks, perhaps, had at least two dedicated pizza joints, as well as another three or four restaurants that had pizza, but also served other things. Obviously, a captive audience of 20,000 college students can support several pizza places! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And I'm sure the proprietors knew that when they opened their restaurants.

wtywmn4
Mar. 12, 2004, 08:15 AM
When making these comparisons, you are talking about spectator sports. Of which, we are supposed to be one, and aren't. Empty seats at GP's seems to be happening more & more. So will abolishing the mileage rule help this? I don't think so. We haven't been able to get "John Q Public" involved all that well. They see us as being out of reach for the ordinary man. Riding lessons for little Susie, well maybe. Football or basketball is in every school system across this country, riding is not. Free enterprise with regards to a venue whose audience is small may do more harm than good. Just MHO..

Snowbird
Mar. 12, 2004, 08:37 AM
Well all of the situations you describe there are sanctioning bodies that create schedules and approvals.

But, Let's accept your premise and it is all wide open and Zone 2 will be the beneificiary so every week-end there is an A Rated Show at Briarwood, Duncraven, Snowbird, Ashley Meadows, Hunter Farms and Woodedge. None have a scheduling problem because they all have privately run farms. Without the mileage rule there would be no reason for anything but A Shows and unrecognized.

How does this improve the grassroots and the ladder for the way up? Well it would mean that anyone with two friends in the same division could be assured of qualifying for wherever they want to go. That's a good thing right?

We all know that the Rated Divisions at 3'6" don't matter much to anyone anyway. And, any three of the competitors can go to a show together to make sure they get their points.

How does this improve the quality of competition or the value of being a winner? How would this encourage people to move up? If you compete in unrated divisions it already doesn't matter because there is no mileage rule.

I wonder if those of you who want to get rid of mileage realize that the mileage rule only applies to the USEF Rated Hunters. How many of you actually go into these divisions? Judging from the statistics in all of Zone 2 there aren't as many as 6 in most divisions or they wouldn't have dropped the rule down to four for shall not cancel.

So if now, there are times when there are only four or less in a USEF Division why would it be better if there were five shows to pick from on any day? If as everyone says they can't afford a 3'6" horse and 3'0" is pretty much the top bracket how would that improve the number of riders who can perform at 3'6" or horses to do 3'6". Those are the only ones today affected by the mileage rule. Otherwise there can be 5 shows on any day within 0 miles of each other.

It seeems to me also then that it will be even more self destructive to endorse the unrecognized shows which are now very healthy and happy with only unrated classes and Divisions. Why then would it matter at all if a show were sanctioned by the USEF? The prices would go up for entries and there would be no benefit to anyone.

I personally support the USEF to the tune of $40,000 a year and if I were to be unrecognized I could save all that money. But, if all the farms like Snowbird felt that way the USEF would have a problem staying in business because they have a $20 million dollar budget to cover.

I agree that you would have a lot more choices of judges and space but would that be better for you to feel that you had actually won anything? Would you be happier if all the shows were A Rated? And if they put the Childrens Hunter and the Adult Amateur Hunter into the system would you be happy with the Increment point system and no mileage?

Battle Scarred Veteran

Erin
Mar. 12, 2004, 08:54 AM
Since the 3'6" divisions aren't exactly flourishing under the mileage rule anyway, that wouldn't seem to be evidence supporting keeping it. Haven't the rated divisions been in consistent decline for the last decade or so?

Eventing and dressage do just fine without a mileage rule.

Silver Bells
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:01 AM
SNOWBIRD.... All the shows you mentioned in your post are why the mileage rule needs to be abolished! These shows are tired!

Let's give others a chance.... Only the strong will survive!

Portia
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:07 AM
From what I can tell, with the vast majority of other sports, the sanctioning body only sets schedules for high level competitions, not for the non-elite competitions which make up 95% of horse shows.

Yes, USA Tennis or USA Swimming care about who, when, and where a state, regional, or national championship is put on, but they don't regulate whether there are competing childrens/amateur tournaments or swim meets in the same area on the same weekend. I just took a look at the USTA rules for sanctioned tournaments, and they basically say a competition just has to apply for sanction and then meet the following requirements -- nothing about dates or mileage.

One thing -- dressage is subject to the mileage rule, though the mileages are different than for H/J. Dressage just hasn't had enough demand for competitions for it to matter very often, but it does come up and is increasing with the growth of dressage. If I recall correctly, there was a big dispute last year over a dressage competition date.

Eventing does not have a mileage rule, but it is, and has to be for the protection of the horse, strict about its schedules. However, the organizers are all well aware of that and the capital investment costs of creating new venues to hold events is too great to attract significant competition in a particular area.

But, yes, obviously the place where it has by far the most impact is H/J.

PineTreeFarm
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:10 AM
I've already posted what I think the outcomes of abolishing the mileage rule could be.
For those of you that are for abolishing the rule what do you think the outcomes will be? More shows? Less Shows? More or less one day shows? More or less multi day 'A' shows? New facilities offering shows or the same ones as today? Less rated shows, more unrecognized shows?

findeight
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:11 AM
I shall send my e-mail as soon as I get off the business trip.

Mileage rule does impact us all in different ways, some positive and some negative, depending on where we live and what we show in.

Around here we are very short of A shows due to the mileage rule-dates are owned by somebody 2 states away..within the protection of that rule but way too far for many.

Far as number of entries? That doesn't wash with me, there can be 120 plus in 3 age splits in the Adult Hunters. That's plenty to go around.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

War Admiral
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:17 AM
The mileage rule applies to other disciplines also, Snowbird, not just H/J. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif There are 2 Saddlebred shows that duked it out down here for YEARS for the same dates - one finally gave up and moved farther south. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I think THAT is the kind of silly situation that getting rid of the mileage rule would help with. It can't be that much fun for show managers to have to beg and plead for dates at their local venue b/c those are the only dates USEF will let them have?? And for us exhibitors, it really would be nice to have a choice as to where to go.

I actually see the abolition of the mileage rule being GOOD for little shows - because some of the currently nonrated shows (who can't get the dates) can move up to become "B", "C" or Local rated. In my zone right now, it's A's or nonrateds with no middle ground, and I'd like to see that change.

______________

Can I show under an alter, TOO?

Silver Bells
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:19 AM
PineTreeFarm....
Why not throw the crap against the wall and see what sticks... It's got to be better than it is now.

plottwist
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:43 AM
The mileage rule protects show managers and limits choices for exhibitors. With that said, in Zone 2, I do not see anyone stepping up with a new facility begging to put on shows Silver Bells. I my neck of the woods, open acreage for horses doesn't exist anymore and I suspect this dilema will slowly work its way toward you too.

Show managers want and sometimes need (in order to put food on their tables) their dates protected. And I see where they are coming from. Competition would mean more work upgrading facilities, upgrading management practices, loss of revenue. Some would have to work harder for your buck. This is a no win situation for some show managers.

Exhibitors would benefit by having choices and/or going to facilities that continually upgrade or maintain an already high standard.
They might even see entry fees dropped as shows try to entice exhibitors to come. Without the mileage rule, exhibitors would feel that they have the freedom of choice.

I think this issue is such an explosive topic because it effects the way show managers make their living.

AM
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:58 AM
Just some questions about the make up of the task force. Who is not from the equestrian world? Are they all show managers? The names I recognize are. Is there a reason there are no women on the task force?

Janet
Mar. 12, 2004, 10:49 AM
Erin said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Eventing and dressage do just fine without a mileage rule. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Read the mileage rule. It DOES apply to dressage- the distances are just a bit different. In fact. 214.2 applies to "all other Recognized Competitions, including divisions other than hunter and jumper offered in competitions held in those states in Group 1" (eventing is exempted later on, in 214.8).

And while the mileage rule does not apply to eventing, eventing dates are controlled by the USEA, through the Area Councils. The Area Councils, can, if they choose to, be even more strict about conflicts than the mileage rule, deeming a road distance of 156 miles, or even 219 miles to be "a conflict", even in Area II with many events. Conversely, the Area Council HAS allowed events approximately 85 road miles apart (somewhat closer as the crow flies) to run on the same weekend. (Not complaining about either decision, just pointing out the lattitude of subjecive judgement.)

One good question is whether or not it is better to have an arbitrary system (like the mileage rule) or a subjective sysytem (like the Area Council) determining what is, or is not, a conflict.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Portia
Mar. 12, 2004, 11:12 AM
Task Force Members:

Robert Ridland -- international show jumping rider and trainer; an Active Athlete; show manager in California who runs Blenheim Sports; runs FEI competitions, including having been show manager for the World Cup Championships in Las Vegas in 2000 and 2003; on USEF Board of Directors and serves on several USEF committees including Competition Management; from Southern California.

Robert Higgins -- FEI Dressage steward, has a company called Akai Consulting; does alkso manage dressage competitions. I know him from the Rules Reorganization Committee, where he has been an invaluable help; also co-chair of the Federation Representative Committee, is on the Audit Committee, Competition Management, and some other USEF Committees; from Florida.

Bill Moroney -- H/J trainer, lots of juniors and ponies; not a show manager; one of the primary organizers and President of the USHJA; on Board of Directors and hunter committee of USEF; from Virginia

John Long -- the new paid Chief Executive Officer of USEF. Not a show manager, no particular ties to any discipline (except I understand his wife has some kind of show horses); came from a background in the administrative side of the TB racing industry; very strong business experience.

Howard Pike -- He's the only one I don't know much about, and something tells me I should probably be embarrassed for having to admit it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I have a faint recollection that he is a lawyer, but that's about it.

Erin
Mar. 12, 2004, 11:13 AM
Whoops, my apologies for the erroneous statement about dressage and eventing... thanks for correcting me!

Clydejumper
Mar. 12, 2004, 11:34 AM
I agree the mileage rule needs to hit the wayside. A little competition does the soul good. There are some facilities out there that need an upgrade put restrictions on the nice, newer facilities because they had the dates first and it limits the exhibitors freedom of choice.

Here is an example of free choice: There are four Tire stores within a 1.5 mile radius of each other. 1: gives customer freedom of choice 2: Only the strong will survive 3: Puts the customer first.

Flying Horse Feathers

scrubs
Mar. 12, 2004, 02:41 PM
I know two sets of investors willing to put show facilities in Florida - and that's based on JUST the winter money that goes down there. But, they won't do it becasue of the milage rule - that to me is a real loss. And like someone said before, land and places to run big, good, recognized shows is becomeing few and far betrween, lets get them up and running now before its too late. If the "old" shows can't keep up - that's what a free market system will dictate. I have to deal with a VERY narrow market in my business every day - I would LOVE if some governing body would tell all the other people in my field that they could only do buisness within a far distance from me - that guarentees me X number of clients and dollars - how easy! My life would be so much easier with no competition!!! I have to provide a superior product at a good price to stay alive, there is not reason horse shows should be any different.

[This message was edited by scrubs on Mar. 12, 2004 at 04:54 PM.]

Doubleeez
Mar. 12, 2004, 04:40 PM
All you exhibitors DO have freedom of choice now. If you don't want to go to the show in your backyard you can go to another one "X" miles away as dictated by the current mileage rule. Sure - it means longer hours and more travel time but choice is available. I just heard today that a big well known farm in Florida was not going to attend an A show in their town, but will instead travel to Louisiana to an AA show on the same dates. So is it really about choice or is it about points?
And if it's about points, why not abolish them
too?
And exhibitors forget that in order for a manager to create a show there is a sizeable outlay of $$$ just to get it rolling. Not only that but the management takes all the risk of losing those $$$ in case of inclement weather when you decide not to attend. But if management charges post entry fees, you have a tizzy fit. Is this playing field level?
Granted, the mileage rule needs revision but not abolition.

Snowbird
Mar. 12, 2004, 05:42 PM
Well if points are the name of the game, it will make it much more difficult to qualify don't you think. If there are five/six or more shows running on the same day and they all can award points there will be that many more competitive point collectors.

Lots of people who normally couldn't win will find a show they can win at and acquire those valuable points to qualify for whatever. There will be five/six places close enough so you can go to all of them and if the show managers are clever we will time it so you can all do three or four shows in one day. Won't that be special?

Especially handy since they can all be A Rated. It's amazing how a little pressure could get show management to cooperate with each other. You need what 1000 points now for the Zone Horse Show? Let's start a pool and see if it doesn't go up to 5000 points to qualify without the mileage rule.

Bet the guy who drives the fastest wins the most most points for the most shows to qualify.
The two day rule wouldn't be too bad that way. We could schedule it so you could do three shows a day.

You guys might be on to something, actually I think all us tired shows would be pretty well. We've made our investment and have our equipment and we just freeze out the new guy by scheduling so you can't get there.

Then you can choose the shows you hate win and qualify or the shows you love and lose and stay home. There's always an answer to every problem and frequently the solution works for the very people you think will go down. The secret is staying power not quality. The guy with the most money who can hang on will survive unless we find a way to get you to more shows then we win.

Out of curiosity Silver Bells what is your division of choice?

Battle Scarred Veteran

Portia
Mar. 12, 2004, 06:41 PM
It's a fairly basic rule that in the presence of competition, demand and supply will largely equalize.

If a market cannot support multiple shows (supply) on the same week, then the customers (demand) will choose their preferred supplier(s), and one or more of the other suppliers will drop out of the market.

The surviving suppliers would then have the continuing incentive to provide a good product, because failure to do so would invite new competition.

It would probably only take a few years for it all to shake out. Now, is that the right thing for the health and growth of the sport as a whole? That's probably what the task force is trying to figure out.

Silver Bells
Mar. 12, 2004, 06:50 PM
I think some new players need to have a chance at putting on some shows. Let the exhibitors choose, plain and simple. All the other variables will work themselves out. Change is good for growth.
My division of choice is the older A/O'S. I am very particular where I go, since I will be there over 2 days.

slp
Mar. 12, 2004, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Bells:
I think some new players need to have a chance at putting on some shows. Let the exhibitors choose, plain and simple. All the other variables will work themselves out. Change is good for growth.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this completely. We have a new facility here in Michigan (Willow Ridge) that probably has the best show rings/footing we have ever experienced. BUT they can't get any show dates because the other facilities with lousy footing control them (and we only have so many weekends for outdoor shows here in Michigan). If I had a choice on the same weekend between taking our horse to Willow Ridge or one of the other places, I would choose W.R. in a minute, but I am not allowed that choice. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif
Susan

plottwist
Mar. 12, 2004, 07:35 PM
Silverbells, I'm getting tired of your constant rant that there are people out there chomping at the bit so to speak to run horse shows. Who are these people?!?!? So far you haven't named anyone. Or are they people who talk the talk and that's it.... I'm all for some sort of change, but your spin has no substance.

Katie
Mar. 12, 2004, 08:03 PM
One name in my area is Tom Finch of Summerplace. He has the BEST horse shows in the state! So far, he's not done any shows other than VHSA Associate because of the protected dates. He's not your average show manager either; he was a rider and trainer in the past so he knows what people want.

I think if people like Tom were able to get dates, the awful shows in the area would fall by the wayside. If show managers aren't willing to put quality over $, then they deserve to go out of business.

OAK
Mar. 12, 2004, 09:53 PM
Let the Cream rise to the TOP. Around here the TRAINERS want to split division with SIX in two, so their customers can get POINTS. This has got to stop. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif As everyone says let the exhibitor go to the shows he feels best that suits them. If they like it the come back if not the try another show, without driving 2 hours. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Erin
Mar. 12, 2004, 10:19 PM
'Course, the points system could always be overhauled instead. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Lord knows that a system that could use some fixing too!

Doubleeez
Mar. 13, 2004, 05:11 AM
Erin -
You are so right, and when you think about it, it's all about POINTS, not nmileage. SLP writes that if there were a choice it would be Willow Ridge, in a heartbeat. There probably is a choice of Willow Ridge WITHOUT POINTS and another show WITH POINTS. So let's 'fess up here - isn't this whole thread based on the fact that exhibitors not only want decent facilities and well run shows but they must have POINTS too?

DMK
Mar. 13, 2004, 05:31 AM
Not for me. Sure, I like winning, but I haven't ever been inclined to show enough to warrant worrying about points. And I damn sure haven't ever socked my schedule full of C shows just to rack up points easier. I like showing at nice shows with decent footing and nice stabling areas/good facilities. There are certain managers that I can count on to deliver this the vast majority of time. There are ather managers that don't do so well.

I get to pick what I consider to be the best farrier, vet, tack store, discipline magazine, saddle, bridle, boots, chaps, trailer, truck, horse, trainer (pocket trainer, of course), self motivational technique and bottle of wine. Heck, about the only time my choice is limited is when I pack up this 5 to 6 figure road show and take it to the SHOW.

And no, maybe the mileage rule doesn't need to be abolished, but it damn sure needs overhauling and maybe it needs to be set on the path to extinction.

Sometimes I think I understand everything, then I regain consciousness.

War Admiral
Mar. 13, 2004, 05:45 AM
Well, yes, the point system *does* need overhauling, but that may be another battle for another time...

Meanwhile I think it's important for H/J people to remember that there actually are disciplines where there are not *enough* rated shows in a zone - and that of course is proximately caused by the mileage rule. In the case of the 2 Saddlebred shows I mentioned, I can guaran-darn-teeya that 98% to 100% of the competitors would attend both shows if both were rated.

The mileage rule was a nice theory, but the way it has worked out in practice effectively amounts to restraint of trade.

______________

Can I show under an alter, TOO?

slp
Mar. 13, 2004, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doubleeez:
Erin -
You are so right, and when you think about it, it's all about POINTS, not nmileage. SLP writes that if there were a choice it would be Willow Ridge, in a heartbeat. There probably is a choice of Willow Ridge WITHOUT POINTS and another show WITH POINTS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Willow Ridge isn't holding any H/J shows this year at all because they know that without points, nobody will come. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

havaklu
Mar. 13, 2004, 07:20 AM
I think there are some changes needed but I don't think abolishing the mileage rule is the answer.

The ideas of a comittee or some such review board does sound plausible to me - because I think the problem with the mileage rule is the fact that it is basically a formula method and as such does not take into account those instances and areas where there are enough entries to support an additonal show.

A review board could evaluate each new show on it's own merits - they could review the new site, look at the proposed schedule, pricing, etc. and compare it to the existing show to determine if they felt granting the new date would be in the best interests of the competitors, horses, and so on.

Of course even a review board could fail - because those who would naturally make the best members would probably be those who have a vested interest in the shows that have a current date - or they would be well aquanted with those individuals. That's the nature of the horse industry - most show managers were previously riders, triainers, or have worked with other show managers.

So it would be difficult to implement - or it really wouldn't be effective.

The only change to the current mileage rule that makes sense is changing the definition of mileage to be "driving miles" (perhaps according to Triple A charts - we all have our own personal short cuts...). Using "as the crow flies" really doesn't make sense.

The main fear I have with abolishing the mileage rule is the idea that it would be such a major change that it might result in there being more shows but ALL of them could suffer.

By suffer - what would happen if two shows were offered 100 miles apart both within 50 miles of a major city? It is possible that 50% would go to one and 50% go to the other - they both are AA which means they MUST give out a minimum amount of prize money - but since they both end up with half their numbers in the RATED division - they both end up canceling divisions and as such lose their rating.

Now you have a bunch of unhappy exhibitors, trainers, etc because there are customers who put out a lot of time, money and preparation only to have their classes canceled.

Sure the 3' divisions and big pro classes would fill - but not your A/O's, Juniors, regular working or possibly your mini prix or GP. The pony divisions would be combined along with the greens and so on.

And now BOTH show managers are in a financial bind - because the nice facility they rented is threatening NOT to allow them to come back - the new facility didn't make enough to pay their loan.

The end result is that you might find yourself in a situation where there would only be horse shows in certain cities around the country rather than the current situation where they are sprinkled around the country.

Can you imagine if WEF were the only place you could show in the winter? Or if to show in the summer you had to go north to either KY or the East coast?

Yes, from an economics standpoint - competition is good - but take any industry that has open competition and tell me what is happening in our current market? Basically the profitable little companies get bought out by the BIG CORPORATION!

Do we want to invite the possibility that all our shows will one day be run by a few nattional show managers? In some areas that is already happening - but if you abolish the mileage rule I think you can rest assured it will happen much faster.

I think with a topic like this - each person has to step back from their own situation and think about the broader impact it would have across the nation and try to anticipate the various scenarios, risks involved along with the probabilities.

To go back to the pizza shop analogy that was used earlier - Do the mom & pop pizza shops really compete with the likes of Dominoes, Popa Johns or Pizza Hut? 9 times out of 10 the local mom & pop has a superior product - but they are only sucessfull in their immediate area - there is not a lot of growth in small pizza shops - the growth continues for the big chains.

So the WEF-like horse shows would probably survive the end of the mileage rule - but the nice 300-500 horse show currently protected by the mileage rule could easily go out of business.

War Admiral
Mar. 13, 2004, 07:37 AM
But that's what the *levels* of ratings are for, havaklu. We all seem to have this idea nowadays that there is nothing between AA and local/non-rated, and that's not the case.

In your scenario, one of those shows could easily move to a smaller, less expensive venue, voluntarily drop down from "AA" to "B" or even "C", and make a decision to specifically cater to the low-levels and almost-ready-to-move-up-but-not-quites. This would give the exhibitors a nice wide variety of options and would still guarantee both managers a field of competitors.

That's how the system was originally designed to work, and IMO that's how it *should* work. This "AA or nothing" mentality is responsible for most of the problems.

______________

Can I show under an alter, TOO?

wtywmn4
Mar. 13, 2004, 07:37 AM
Agreed havaklu. I too pick and chose. Not for points, but a show where all things equal is the best for you and your horse. Getting rid of that "as the crow flies" would open it up alot. Or possibly change the current mileage period. Allow less miles between shows. Then someone could pick and chose whose A show they want to go to. It would be more competitive.

War Admiral, the original system is not working. Many B and C shows in our area are seeing a resurgence. They are providing the venues people want to come to. This is also why so many grassroots org. have taken off. They are providing same quality, less fees. They do in fact follow the rules of the USEF when it comes to medical, vets, blacksmiths, judges, stewards etc. Courses, footing all better than many other shows. They even have their own year end awards. So why come to USEF shows? To pay more money? Not going to happen.

havaklu
Mar. 13, 2004, 07:59 AM
War Admiral - Maybe I'm not reading the mileage rule correctly - but the mileage requirements are already lower distance requirements if the "2nd show" wants a B or C rating or if both shows are B or C rated.<UL TYPE=SQUARE>(drops from 250 for two A's to 200 for an A and B, 150 for two B's, 100 for and A or B and a C, and so on down to 75 miles for an A,B or C and a Local rated - I'm simplifying it a bit)[/list]

My understanding of the "abolish the mileage rule" is that it is to allow more competition between A and AA shows - I don't get the feeling there is a large clamor for less mileage to protect the B and C shows.

Please correct me if my understanding is off base.

OK - War Admiral - I re-read your post and it looks like we are in agreement - the mileage rule allows for closer B and C rated shows. So I think we are both wondering why the mileage rule needs to be abolished.

[This message was edited by havaklu on Mar. 13, 2004 at 10:11 AM.]

poltroon
Mar. 13, 2004, 08:35 AM
Tweaks that might help are changing to driving miles, and/or having different mileage values for different exhibitor densities.

I believe in the free market, and yet I know that the free market does not always favor the "best" - you might see both competing shows die, or you might see the one that most people consider "better run" just because people were off experimenting by trying out the other show.

How about this: a show manager can only protect up to X days of showing with the mileage rule? That is, maybe you're allowed 8 competition days protected by the rule, but after that, you're on your own. If Show Management, Inc, holds two shows a year, their dates are protected. But if they hold 10 (potentially monopolizing their local area), they can designate only a few of those competitions for the mileage rule. You could not protect a date where another show existed first. This would give protection to smaller and/or unique shows, and yet would still open up the possibilities.

ALF
Mar. 13, 2004, 08:44 AM
The mileage rule is probably illegal. Major League baseball is the only sport that is exempt from from anti-trust law.

this is not a legal opinion.

edited to say I dont know if this idea has been explored before (either in court or here). If it has I'm sure someone will politely bring me up to speed without getting nasty.

poltroon
Mar. 13, 2004, 08:47 AM
Here in the West, driving TIME is sometimes even more important than miles. When I was looking for property, we saw a place advertised as "just 10 miles from Napa" - and it was true, as the crow flies. But I'm not a crow, and even in a passenger car (not truck and trailer), it would've taken maybe 3-4 hours to drive there, because it was on the other side of the mountain range. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Though it was probably 40 miles from Sacramento, that is where you'd go to show if you lived there, because you could be there in 40 minutes.

CCollman
Mar. 13, 2004, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
If a market cannot support multiple shows (supply) on the same week, then the customers (demand) will choose their preferred supplier(s), and one or more of the other suppliers will drop out of the market.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is part of the point that many people don't seem to understand. This statement is false ... it doesn't work that way.

This statement assumes that if there are six horses showing in the A/O Hunter 36 & Over division in a particular area, that all six would go to the "better" show and the "worse" show would lose and go out of business. Wrong!

The best of the three would go to the "better" show, while the worst of the three would go to the "worse" show to get their points. Now, after the weekend was over, all six have equal points and both shows lose money because three entries in an "A" rated division is a money-loser to show management.

How about both shows go under financially and go away?

Human nature prevents all six from "getting together" and singing "Kumbaya" around the campfire of love, peace and better horse shows. The ones who always lose to the ones who always win WILL go to the other show, regardless of the conditions (within limits, of course), to get their share of points. Take six horses and split them up, and everyone loses!

noname
Mar. 13, 2004, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CCollman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
If a market cannot support multiple shows (supply) on the same week, then the customers (demand) will choose their preferred supplier(s), and one or more of the other suppliers will drop out of the market.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is part of the point that many people don't seem to understand. This statement is false ... it doesn't work that way.

This statement assumes that if there are six horses showing in the A/O Hunter 36 & Over division in a particular area, that all six would go to the "better" show and the "worse" show would lose and go out of business. Wrong!

The best of the three would go to the "better" show, while the worst of the three would go to the "worse" show to get their points. Now, after the weekend was over, all six have equal points and both shows lose money because three entries in an "A" rated division is a money-loser to show management.

How about both shows go under financially and go away?

Human nature prevents all six from "getting together" and singing "Kumbaya" around the campfire of love, peace and better horse shows. The ones who always lose to the ones who always win WILL go to the other show, regardless of the conditions (within limits, of course), to get their share of points. Take six horses and split them up, and everyone loses!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


it doesn't work that way either http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif well maybe it would for the first year or two. people would the figure out for themselves that in order to get points they would have to go to that one show that had more people, eventually driving the other one out of the picture. many of you are thinking short term.....think long term. many shows are going to suffer at first, it is part of the way a free market works.

as far as points go...if the people want to win at lower level shows, that is fine, but you are forgetting that it probably won't be an AA show and they won't get as many points because it will be an A show. (sorry about the run-on) you need to look at the bigger picture.

specific incidents are not going to happen every single time. taking your scenario..... those same six a/o's decide to go to two different shows. lets say that four went to one and only two went to the other. looks like those two aren't going to get any points. you don't think that they are going to try to find out where they can get them the next time around? you aren't giving us humans enough credit. we learn to adapt and find ways to get what we want (ie points).

CellosPride
Mar. 13, 2004, 11:15 AM
The mileage rule is probably illegal. Major League baseball is the only sport that is exempt from from anti-trust law.

this is not a legal opinion.

edited to say I dont know if this idea has been explored before (either in court or here).
_______________________________________________

Portia and Herewegoagain -- First, I think what the Task Force is really concerned about is that to which Herewegoagain alludes. Has the Task Force or USA Equestrian notified the membership about its little lawsuit problem now pending before the District Court Judge (who is also assigned to my Bar Admission Case and that's how I found out) here in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division?

Check it out, any one who has LEXIS can pull this up -- Jes Properties, Inc. d/b/a Cypress Trails Farms v. USA Equestrian, Inc. (formerly American Horse Shows Association), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20633 (M.D.Fla. Oct. 10, 2003) (Bucklew, J.), USA Equestrian's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint that the Mileage Rule violates the antitrust laws under the Sherman Act denied, the fact Ashley Farms New York Case rejected this challenge a few years ago held not to apply, and this Florida case is headed for trial.

While the Mileage Rule may not be such a great impact in other areas of the Country, it surely is in Florida where the Tampa area cannot develop its own horse show circuit because West Palm Beach horse show promoters block the dates. (It causes a similar problem in California).

I might add, lucky thing for USA Equestrian a group of Americans With Disabilities Act protected disabled horse show riders didn't bring suit against the Mileage Rule for failure to accommodate by forcing them to travel too far ...

Don't get me wrong, I love USA Equestrian. I just really disagree with the Mileage Rule, and the fact no one seems to be informed about this little lawsuit that could cost the membership $$$$ over something USA Equestrian should have fixed a long time ago.

noname
Mar. 13, 2004, 11:24 AM
someone was thinking about bringing up a lawsuit under the ada??? wow, can't see how that would have gotten very far, but good for them for trying! i wonder what the supreme court is gonna say when it rules. hmmmmm, all very interesting.

Erin
Mar. 13, 2004, 11:29 AM
Whoa whoa whoa... before any rumors get started... no, I don't think anyone was thinking of bringing a lawsuit under the ADA.

CellosPride brings up the ADA quite often... I think she was just saying a lawsuit COULD have been brought.

noname
Mar. 13, 2004, 11:34 AM
thanks for the clarification!!!!!

CCollman
Mar. 13, 2004, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>... you aren't giving us humans enough credit. we learn to adapt and find ways to get what we want (ie points).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, noname, that IS EXACTLY my point. You just said it in your statement above ... and the way to do that is to go to a show that has divisions that fill but are very small and non-competitive. And the way to do that is to go to the show that the others (ones that always win) don't go to. All it takes is three, and you get points.

That, unfortunately, is human nature.

CellosPride
Mar. 13, 2004, 11:49 AM
Thank you Erin. I was just saying the ADA could work as a legal theory as against the Mileage Rule for certain people, like myself, but it would appear Cypress Trails Farms is taking care of the Mileage Rule problem under the Sherman Act. I never really had any desire to sue over the Mileage Rule myself anyway, it just gripes me sometimes when horse shows are so far away and it becomes a six-hour drive.

As for the implication that if the Supreme Court rules against the disabled in Tennessee v. Lane, that can easily be gotten around. First, a State which fails to comply with the ADA's Title II regulation to Self-Evaluate it's "consent-to-be-sued" rules will still waive Eleventh Amendment immunity and thereby be subject to damages, since the burden of proof on the duty to Self-Evaluate is on the State. The declaratory and prospective injunctive relief under Ex parte Young will still be available, which the Supreme Court already stated in Garrett (a Title I ADA case in which there was no Self-Evaluation regulation because fundamental constitutional rights were not at stake). Finally, the ADA has an "incorporation clause" which provides the Congressional powers under which it was enacted, using "included" but not limited to language, which readily under Supreme court precedent may serve as preexisting legislation for enforcement of certain U.S. human rights Treaty rights, such as provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since monetary "reparations" are available for such treaty violations, enforced through pre-existing legislation on the same subject, even if Tennesee v. Lane goes down, it isn't the end of the world for people with disabilities. Reparations are almost like punitive damages in some instances. The fight for equal opportunity has only just begun ...

You see, the world is full of critical thinkers who don't take "no" for an answer. And some of them went to law school, like myself. So when you get a person who dictates with technological assistive technology and you get State Courts that refuse to provide that accommodation on a blanket exclusionary basis, even though Bar Examiners pass you with the same, you wind up with people who research until they find the solution and then have the courage to change "how things are."

I know I am not alone -- 7200 learning disabled law school graduates sued the California Bar Examiners a few years ago over the same thing.

Just my 2 cents.

Erin
Mar. 13, 2004, 11:54 AM
So what if it weren't about points? What if the size of your division influenced how many points you got? Then what would everyone think about the mileage rule?

CellosPride
Mar. 13, 2004, 12:04 PM
Well, this way of thinking about the Mileage Rule is a backward way of thinking. Why does everyone concentrate on slicing up the same size pie differently, rather than putting efforts into promoting the sport to the point the pie gets bigger so there are enough entries close enough by that the Mileage Rules doesn't matter? Any M.B.A. would know this is how to grow the way out of the problem. Simply stifling and fixing competition is never the answer. I can remember going to lots of shows in the New York area as a child with huge numbers of entries on the same dates or overlapping the same dates, and no show suffered. What you did get was horse show promoters who went the extra mile to make their show the best, for example not soaking the competitors $8 for a small orange juice at the show food stand because they are captive customers.

At any rate, whatever the Federal Court rules is how it will be no matter what anyone else thinks about it. It would just be nice if there were a lot more horse shows in the Tampa area, that's how I see it.

ALF
Mar. 13, 2004, 12:11 PM
Unless the mileage rule somehow creates entries, there arent going to be any fewer shows without it.

Portia
Mar. 13, 2004, 12:50 PM
The existence of the Florida lawsuit is public information, and it was a topic of discussion at the Annual Meeting. The plaintiffs essentially allege that the application of the mileage rule effectively violates antitrust/restraint of trade laws. I can't comment on the details of the suit or USEF's defense to it, other than to say that USEF is vigorously defending against the claims asserted.

The USEF believes the mileage system complies with the law, and it has in fact been upheld by other courts in the past. Does that mean it shouldn't be reviewed and can't be improved, or even eliminated if that would be beneficial to the growth of the sport? Of course not. That's what the task force is for.

wtywmn4
Mar. 13, 2004, 04:32 PM
Erin, thats what the AQHA has, points from numbers in classes. Think we did post about that last year. Guess it was over the same issue, doing away with the mileage rule. One has to wonder, if nothing happened last year, why now? Maybe that speaks for the whole topic. Possibly there aren't as many people interested in doing away with it as posters here think?

weeble
Mar. 13, 2004, 07:34 PM
CCollman is absolutely right, abolish the mileage rule and nobody wins.

All the posters keep throwing around "free market", "let the best show win", "good footing", etc. but as noname so concisely said, you'll all go where you can get your points.

The winners in that scenario, assuming no more mileage rule, are those that can better package their product. Since we are all comparing this to many retail ventures, I'm sure we've all had experience of being attracted by a pretty package and finding what's inside isn't what we expected. Horse shows are no different.

The prize list comes out with bells, whistles, and lots of money offered and you're there. You have always been able to show where you want to, contrary to what many of you seem to believe. If your alternative is staying home one particular week, DO IT, speak with you showing dollar, reward the shows you like and the mileage situation will take care of itself.

"just remember this my girl, when you look up in the sky, you can see the stars but still not see the light." -The Eagles (song by J. Tempchin/R. Stradlund)

CTT
Mar. 13, 2004, 10:14 PM
My personal attitude has not been to get rid of the rule but base it on population. Imagine having 20 shows in Texas on onw weekend. We have a hard enough time filling one show. I think there needs to be control in one way so we don't have a bunch of small shows catering to a handful of people each week.

There does need to be something there but I think it needs to be based off of equine population in a given mile range. Say you have in a 40 mile range 10,000 horses but in the same range some place else only 900. That large population could handle 5 shows in one weekend while the other can only handle one show.

If we throw out the rule look at how many pre qualifiers we will half to do just to slim the selection of qualified riders. Say we have 2,000 shows over the US and we got rid of the rule and there was then 10,000 shows, we would half to do so many diffrent things just to control for year end points.

I like how tennis has things set up here in TX. You go based off of points you have earned in a given time. once you reach those points you got from Zat to Champs, once you have champs points you go to superchamps, from there you get to go to regional then to national.

If this rule goes out the door I see alot of problems we can not handle. There has to be some way of manageing such shows if the rules go.

"I'm going to go see a horse about a man" - Unknown

Katie
Mar. 14, 2004, 01:41 AM
It's not always about the points. For many professionals who live on the road it IS about the 'better' show. That's why most people still go to WEF for the winter, because the venue is still better than Ocala or Gulfport (or maybe that's where everyone's friends go).

Most of the juniors/amateurs don't have a choice, because the trainer decides where to go. Sometimes they base their decision on input from their clients, sometimes not.

So, please don't insinuate that ALL riders go to show JUST to get points.

Portia
Mar. 14, 2004, 11:43 AM
The existence of the points system is no reason not to address the mileage rule.

There's a fairly simple way to overhaul the points system -- just do what dressage and other disciplines do and have qualifications for championships based on performance at a certain limited number of shows. People can then pick and choose, but not feel like they have to go to every show just to keep accumulating points.

Of course, many show managers don't like that idea either, because it removes the incentive for those who are inclined to chase points to to to show after show week after week and help keep even bad shows in business.

weeble
Mar. 14, 2004, 11:46 AM
Seems reasonable, Portia, but in dressage are those certain shows pre-selected or are they shows of the exhibitor's choosing?

"just remember this my girl, when you look up in the sky, you can see the stars but still not see the light." -The Eagles (song by J. Tempchin/R. Stradlund)

Portia
Mar. 14, 2004, 12:07 PM
Exhbitors' choosing. It's a little different, because they have numerical scores for every test, but it could easily work for hunters. They have to get X number of scores above Y % from different judges, and they qualify for the regional championships in that test/level. If I recall correctly, the national championships are based on either highest score or highest average score out of X number of tests, but one of the dressage people can explain it in more detail.

It's funny, because I was talking with some high level dressage folks at the Annual Meeting, and we were talking about point chasing. They were insisting that dressage people are heavily into point chasing, but what they meant by point chasing was trying to get their qualifying scores. They had no idea that the hunters didn't have a system like theirs and instead have one that encourages showing week after week just to pile on points. They were pretty appalled by that idea.

The dressage folks pick what shows they want to do, go out and try to get their qualifying scores, then after they get them they show only because they want to do the particular show or work on something with their horse, not because they want points.

Erin
Mar. 14, 2004, 12:39 PM
I'm not sure how it works for the year-end awards in dressage... I think you're allowed to send in a certain number of scores, and then they're averaged... or something like that.

Here's a link to the rules for awards on USDF's site:

http://www.usdf.org/Programs/awards/Rules.asp

Qualifying for regional championships just involves getting two scores from two different judges at two different shows over a certain percentage.

I want to qualify my little guy to go to championships at first level... so, I need to find shows that are offering the qualifying class (first level test 4). Once I get two scores at two different shows from two diffent judges of 60% or better, I'm qualified, and I don't have to show again until the championship if I don't want to.

If you're struggling to get the qualifying score, yeah, you might hit every show in your area trying to get it. But if you're pretty confirmed at that level, two shows and you're qualified. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Editing to add a better explanation of the year end awards... you must send in a minimum of 8 scores, from four different judges and four different competitions. If you have more than 8 scores, the top 80 percent are used to calculate the median score. (And all of your scores count... you can't just not send in scores from a show where your horse was a raving lunatic. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif All the scores are recorded.)

That's the gist of it for training through fourth levels. You can be HOTY at your level and only show at four shows... and even showing every darn weekend won't help you beat someone who only shows four times, because the scores are averaged.

[This message was edited by Erin on Mar. 14, 2004 at 03:11 PM.]

weeble
Mar. 14, 2004, 01:11 PM
Thanks for the info, guys. I think that system or something similar would be great for hunters. I'm no show manager but I do know a few that work very hard to present nice, enjoyable, safe shows that would be hurt if the mileage rule was abolished.

Working as an individual for qualifying scores would be great, but I think then the step further would be to let the parent org. run year-end finals, etc. I see a lot of maniipulation on the part of some managements in the area of securing all special shows (Zone finals, Medal finals, Championship events) and if that's what an exhibitor is working toward, they are forced to go to that show whether they like particular management style or not. (sorry, that was pretty run-on http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif)

Let the qualifying situation be "rider against a standard" no matter where you are showing.. I think those dressage folks have got something there.

"just remember this my girl, when you look up in the sky, you can see the stars but still not see the light." -The Eagles (song by J. Tempchin/R. Stradlund)

Erin
Mar. 14, 2004, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by weeble:

Let the qualifying situation be "rider against a standard" no matter where you are showing.. I think those dressage folks have got something there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Course, this means that people wouldn't need to show 30 weekends a year, and entries might go down and show managers might lose money.

It also means that the people who can AFFORD to show 30 weekends a year wouldn't have an advantage in the HOTY awards over those who can't.

Hmm. Wonder why the system has been in place as long as it has, and there seems to be so much resistance to changing it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Portia
Mar. 14, 2004, 04:02 PM
Yeah, we see that at our barn every year. About 1/2 the barn is dressage, and 1/2 is H/J. The dressage people and the H/J people show about the same number of times each year. The dressage people always end up with some nice year-end championships and other year-end awards, while the H/J people don't have much chance no matter how well we do in the shows we go to, because we don't go to enough of them.

It's something we've had to learn to live with, but it would be nice to have a system where we could have something to flaunt in front of the DQs at the end of the year for a change. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 14, 2004, 08:43 PM
And it certainly would be very nice for the horses too!

So now that there's an idea for the hunters, jumpers being a different entity, what would you suggest for them? Personally I think many of the GP horses are being shown more than they should. JMHO

Portia
Mar. 14, 2004, 09:21 PM
It would be different for the jumpers, but I think you could probably do it with a system of placings in the different levels, based on the number of entries and the designation of national level, international level, etc. That wouldn't do away with the incentive to show a lot to win money, but I'm not sure what you can do about that part.

Snowbird
Mar. 14, 2004, 09:40 PM
Well Portia all the jumpers are ranked by the amount of money won, and that also determines the level at which they can compete. There is no mileage rule for Jumpers because they have no USEF Rating. So any Jumper show that wishes at any time can offer Jumper Classes and unrecognized classes with no problems at all except they have to pay the dues, collect the fees, report the results and Non-Members to USEF with the appropriate fees, and actually pay out the money offered. And, of course have all the required Licensed Personnel, First Aide persons, Insurance and equipment and footing.

As to the Hunters well I agree totally that the rating should be based on the Level of difficulty and not on the amount of money offered. Technically any sanctioned show should be able to offer all levels as they do in Dressage. That's why I have suggested that at C Shows the fences should be lowered to 3'0" for Rated Divisions, at B shows they should be 3'3" and only 3'6" at A shows. I also propose an end to AA Shows which are only AA Rated because of the Money and I don't believe a Recreational Sports Activity should be predicated on Money but skills. I would be delighted to be able to offer all three Ratings at all shows.

As a Show Manager I would totally approve of this change.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Doubleeez
Mar. 15, 2004, 08:45 AM
Would a system like this be good or bad for hunters? Certainly from the exhibitor's point of view it would be good because they wouldn't have to continually chase points.. But let's think about this. How many people who show hunters are actually trying to win a HOTY award? Very few I think. They are only offered in Recognized Divisions and those seem to be the smallest in Recognized shows. It's all those other "Pre", "Special", "Modified", etc. sections that attract the largest number of competitors where there are no points to chase unless they are circuit award points. So here we have the Federation basically trying to govern the unrecognized divisions with their mileage rule. I think this is why so many unrecognized shows are so successful because they are not involved with the USEF mileage rule in any way.

Portia
Mar. 15, 2004, 08:56 AM
I know the jumpers don't have points. What radio talk and I were talking about was a different way to rank the jumpers to try to reduce the incentive to jump constantly. At the upper levels we were talking about they do have rankings -- the computer list.

Doubleez, your argument favors abolishing the mileage rule. If most people aren't chasing points and are in the unrecognized divisions, then we don't have to worry that getting rid of the mileage rule would encourage people to try to show even more or at lower quality shows with less competition simply to chase more points. And getting rid of it would encourage and allow more of those good unrecognized shows to become recognized.

While the mileage rule is probably legal, I still favor a free market system and doing away with it.

Janet
Mar. 15, 2004, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> There is no mileage rule for Jumpers because they have no USEF Rating. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.

214.1 applies to jumper sections with more than $10,000 in prize money

214.2 applies to "all other" recognized competions (except eventing), including jumpers.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Snowbird
Mar. 15, 2004, 11:53 AM
Ah! Janet I wish it were so but it's been re-interpreted because the rules says the mileage applies where there are A/B/C Rated Divisions.

Years ago the Jumpers were Rated, they are not now and therefore when a date application comes in and it's a Jumper Show which is therefore unrated the rule is not applied, "unless they also want to offer the Rated Hunter Divisions".

That is the general misunderstanding. The Mileage rules only applies to those 6 divisions which are rated by the USEF.Any show that wishes can offer jumpers and be a Local Show that mileage is only 40 miles. That's about 20 minutes driving time apart from each other.

Most of the arguments are not about shows offering $10,000 or more in Jumper Prize money, even my A Rated shows are restricted to $4,999 in Jumper Prize Money. That leaves the door wide open for anyone who wants to offer a sanctioned USEF Horse Show with more Prize Money.

Battle Scarred Veteran

OAK
Mar. 15, 2004, 03:07 PM
Snowbird
Janet was correct about jumpers and mileage. If both shows are offering $10,000, then the mileage rules applies for those shows.

findeight
Mar. 15, 2004, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Bells:
PineTreeFarm....
Why not throw the crap against the wall and see what sticks... It's got to be better than it is now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, I was trying to think of an eloquent way to express my feelings...but I think you beat me to it with this statement.

Yeah, let the crap stick where it may, it has to be an improvement as far as exhibitors are concerned.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

Snowbird
Mar. 15, 2004, 03:42 PM
OH! Yes that's true but most A Shows which is what would be affected do not offer jumper classes over $4999. They are prohibited. You see the problem is that that rule was written when Jumpers were rated but all that is affected by any show rating is the 6 USEF Rated HUNTER Divisions.

If you cancel the Mileage what would happen is 5+ A Rated shows every where all the time here in the northeast and the C/B shows would totally disappear.

What a lot of people don't understand is that there is nothing to stop any show from being Local and running everything just there would be no points in any USEF Rated Hunter Division.

I can run A Rated Welsh ponies at a C-Rated Show, I can run A Rated Western Classes at a C-Rated Show.

And at an A Rated Show thw Ladies Side Saddle is still C-Rated so is the Hunter Breeding, Childrens Hunter, or Adult Amateur Hunter.

I frankly can't imagine any reason that two shows offering $10,000 or more for Jumpers in Prize Money would want to be next door, or why that would benefit the exhibitors.

What I can see is that a lot of these shows say they can't be sanctioned because they don't want to follow all the USEF requirements or be accountable, when actually for example there is no reason why Frank Madden's Jumper shows couldn't be sanctioned or for that matter Andrew Philbrick's. I think it's a cop out to save problems. Or maybe a place where the suspended can go legally to compete.

As show managers it isn't a big deal anymore, it was years ago but there are so few 3'6" Hunters that it isn't a money maker even at the AA Shows. The persception is that somehow a AA is better when in reality most of the rings are running C-Rated or less.

Battle Scarred Veteran

OAK
Mar. 15, 2004, 04:07 PM
But the rules reads if two Jumper shows with $10,000 can Not run within 125 mile radial miles. So they couldn't run next to each other. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

findeight
Mar. 15, 2004, 04:17 PM
Snowbird...I don't know if you can state most "A" shows offer less then 4999 in the Jumpers.

That may not be the case nationwide. Certainly isn't here in zone 5, I've got several prize lists for upcoming shows that offer that much for a single OPEN class, with Adult/Child at 1500 and Junior A/O at 2500, various high and low prelim with decent purses and that does not include the GPs at 50k a pop.

So I don't buy the statement most "A" shows offer less the 4999.
It all depends on what area you are talking about and generalizations don't cut it.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

Snowbird
Mar. 15, 2004, 05:19 PM
I can't disagree with that, I'm surely no expert on other parts of the country or jumpers but from what I understand there you have a 250 mile distance while we have 125 miles. So maybe the rules for the Jumpers need to be adjusted, and that's easily done without throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Battle Scarred Veteran

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 15, 2004, 05:45 PM
Having seen Mr. Philbricks unrated Jumper show, where he offered a variety of classes. Had monies for the bigger classes, one would wonder why the Jumpers haven't gone out on their own. But I guess, unless you are USEF the monies won at non rated, or unrecognised shows don't count towards the computer ranking list. But I will tell you, that show was a who's who of jumper riders. Don't know if it's still being done there in NJ..

That still doesn't change the amount of times some of the GP horses are shown. Some are being shown, week after week. I know they're in excellent physical shape, but it does seem alot. The courses in todays GP's are incredibly technical, and long. Fence heights are maxed. When you see a horse do a 16 effort first course, then come back for the jump off, well thats plenty to me.

Snowbird
Mar. 15, 2004, 06:33 PM
And if he wanted to be sanctioned he could do it easily. There are no other shows offering that kind of money against his show.

Battle Scarred Veteran

CellosPride
Mar. 15, 2004, 08:18 PM
As I see it, the real problem is in both hunters and jumpers, exception being GP or higher levels, the prize money doesn't pay enough to support the lower hunter or jumper levels. The fact is the Mileage Rule is an artifical fix, a restriction of competition, and consumers do decide which shows to attend based on what they find when they participate, the fancy prize lists notwithstanding. Maybe the reason so many shows would "go out of business" is adherence to the same way of doing things, which does not expand the sport or bring new people into it or we wouldn't have the problem or the controversy in the first place. In Florida, people in the Tampa area just can't be going off every other week driving some 5-6 hours to West Palm Beach to find an A-rated show. It is hard on the horses, eliminates the middle class and grassroots people who might move up to bigger shows (young families can grow in wealth) from ever become so involved, reduces the horse sales market, and makes it so perpetually on no weekend whatsoever can a person find an A-rated show in the Tampa area. I'm not saying a trip to West Palm Beach is all bad, and I rather like it there better than Tampa, it's just that it is such a long drive and not conducive to growing the horse business for everyone in the Tampa area or creating a market for selling top show horses locally. As for over showing and over jumping horses, I feel I am qualified to speak on that count, too, as I had a HOTY National 3'6" hunter champion. Interestingly, though it was my previous equitation horse that was more over shown and over jumped to qualify for Medal/Maclay Finals (then 3 wins NY), rather than my HOTY, whom won so frequently she was able to accumulate the points without over showing to the point of dropping dead. I think some of the more creative solutions, such as that in the dressage area, which would make quality of performance count more than quantity of shows attended to accumulate points are worth considering, whatever it takes to reduce the pounding and destruction of the soundness of our horses. Many other sports, as mentioned, and Gymnastics comes to mind, have structured from "Zones," to "States," to "Regionals," to "Nationals," in Levels 1-10 and "elites" to find a way around this problem and preserve the quality of performance as the top of the game, rather than those who can travel the most, the farthest, afford the most number of shows, and the greatest volume of drugs to keep their horses together, etc. As things stand now, the only way for one's horse to pay the way (leaving GP horses and certain levels of jumpers out of the equation), is to do A-rated hunter divisions and go to lots of shows to earn enough prize money. My HOTY paid her way with the prize money she won. Lower levels of hunters and the lower jumper levels offer such pitiful amounts of prize money it is no wonder some of the most talented horses and riders never climb the ranks to GP or farther, as the prize money is not sufficient to pay the way to develop/justify the lower levels. My TB jumper presently is a better horse than my HOTY hunter, but due to being green and at a lower level, there is no way to pay his way to develop his talent and achieve whatever he is capable of achieving. This also applies to the development of sales horses in the lower levels. Another thing is, why create an unrecognized show undergound, so to speak, where persons whom are suspended can continue to show and do horse business, instead of say cutting back the Mileage rule to something like 100-125 miles and bringing more shows under the rules while opening up so much more opportunity for so many to expand business and grow the sport? It just doesn't make sense, and that's why people bring lawsuits over these things with resources that could be so much more productively spent.

[This message was edited by CellosPride on Mar. 15, 2004 at 10:30 PM.]

[This message was edited by CellosPride on Mar. 15, 2004 at 11:47 PM.]

chronic
Mar. 16, 2004, 05:45 AM
well said CellosPride - Like many other posters, I am not after points but would love nice shows where I don't have to hemmorage money, time etc to show greenies and sales horses. I want divisions greater than 3'. I want to be under USEF rules, I want the recognition of a sanctioned show. But I have a barn to run, breeding to run, a completely separate company to run with offices in other states, two kids in school (both of whom ride ponies and would compete in shows that didn't take them out of school or wipe them out... I can't go to WPB for weeks at a time. Doens't mean I won't spend good money if you give me the shows near by and where my young horses are not lost in the crowd. Please write the USEF Cello - you did a good job explaining the issues in Florida.

Ruby G. Weber
Mar. 16, 2004, 07:32 AM
Frank Madden's show was not sanctioned due to the Mileage Rule. Too close to Ox Ridge, same dates.

I'm not sure Andrew cares that his two main events are not sanctioned. He provides a niche for young jumpers and green riders - courses with natural obstacles - and decent prize money. The computer list does not enter into it as no class has $25K or more in prize money. Frank's GP was not a computer list event.

Here in Virginia Deep Run and Roanoke have been running over the same dates for years. Both shows are thriving. Management makes it possible via the time schedule for hunters to show at both shows is so desired.

There should be some governance regarding shows, dates, etc. but the current system, i.e. the Mileage Rule is not the answer. A system which protects badly run shows; shows with unsuitable footing, jumps, etc. cannot be good for the business.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 16, 2004, 07:53 AM
Snowbird, I think Andrew's point was not to be sanctioned, and look what you could do, if memory serves me right. He's proved his point, plus! They even have a waiting list to get in. And look at the money the USEF is losing from that one show. So, one would think that the hunters too could follow suit. Unless of course they want points for HOTY.

Some of those shows should have remained barn shows. Shows a barn would put on for their own clientele. There is a place for them. Its a great starter for someone just learning, and a good place to break in. Plus you can enjoy some of the niceties without the expense. IE: your grass roots folks..

OAK
Mar. 16, 2004, 07:57 AM
It would be nice if managers would work together, but in our area they will not try to work with you. If they have the same date they will not let you run the same classes even though they are an hour away from your show. We probably don't even have the same exhibitors for the unrated divisions.

Doubleeez
Mar. 16, 2004, 08:25 AM
Ruby G - There is one sure way to get rid of the badly run shows with poor footing, etc. DON'T GO !! If enough people stay away, it won't be too long before the management folds its tent nand calls it a day. We all know they are in the business to make money.

Doubleeez
Mar. 16, 2004, 08:39 AM
Cellos - You suggest cutting back the mileage restrictions to fix the situation. Look what happened in zones 1, 2 & 3 when they cut back from 250 miles to 125. The zones were flooded with applications for new shows and many were within the new distances so the dates were granted. There were so many shows you could go around the corner and trip over three or four of them. What happened? Zone 3 found this was counterproductive to their situation and requested to go back to the 250 mile limit - and did. Zones 1 & 2 have shows every day of the week in the summer so you can surely get qualified for the Medal and Maclay Finals and get plenty of HOTY points too. BUT - all these shows have ruined the attendance to any one of them. There is more supply than there is demand and noone is doing particularly well in the exhibiting or management end, except the big established AA shows. I think you're right - there should be some regulation, but what we have now is not the answer.

Janet
Mar. 16, 2004, 09:31 AM
Doubleeez,

You might want to check out this thread on the eventing forum
Rating Events (http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=6656094911&f=2096094911&m=115602411)
on "rating" events. One of the ideas is that the "higher rated" events would have priority in the guidelines for scheduling.

Personally, I think the complete idea, as presented there, is flawed, because they are trying to use one mechanism to accomplish several different (and sometimes opposing) objectives (Scheduling, attracting sponsors, providing a "stick" to get marginal events to shape up, guidance for competitors, etc.).

But some of the specifics are good, and might help with "brainstorming" for alternatives to "money offered" for the hunter rating/scheduling.

BTW, I think I have figured out who you are. If I am right, I am the middle aged lady who introduced my self to you at HITS Culpeper, with the little gray mare in the jumpers, riding with Gegi, who knew you when I was a kid.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 16, 2004, 09:36 AM
Janet, just to play devil's advocate here, if the hunters followed that premise, then the big shows, which might not be all they're supposed to be, would still win out. Priority would be set with numbers, longevity etc..This wouldn't mean better.

Have to say I like the Introductory catagory. See many that could fit into this slot.

Silver Bells
Mar. 16, 2004, 10:29 AM
Doubleeez, You claim there is more supply than demand in Zone 2... I disagree, and I think Zone 2 has the biggest problem with the same managers, same grounds, same jumps etc... I have complained about this for a long time.

Let the exhibitors decide which shows continue by supporting/or not supporting them!

Janet
Mar. 16, 2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by radio talk:
Janet, just to play devil's advocate here, if the hunters followed that premise, then the big shows, which might not be all they're supposed to be, would still win out. Priority would be set with numbers, longevity etc..This wouldn't mean better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I see many problems with "the package", but, for instance, saying that a show couldn't get an AA rating unless it had GREAT footing might not be a bad idea. Numbers and longevity wouldn't HAVE to be important.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Have to say I like the Introductory catagory. See many that could fit into this slot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If the Introductory category is intended to bring in currently unrecognized events, then I amOK with it. If it is intended to "spin off" the marginal recognized events, then I am agin it. In particular, I think licensed official are REALLY IMPORTANT at the events "first timers" go to- and that is the area they seem to be backing off on, inthe interests of saving costs. I would rather go to an unrecognized (not paying USEA or USEF starter fees and recognition fees) event that used licensed official, than an "Introductory" event (which presumably IS still paying USEA and USEF fees), using unlicensed officials.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Snowbird
Mar. 16, 2004, 11:53 AM
Silver Bells what you are looking for then is to limit the number of shows at a facility or by a particular management. I don't think that would be legal and could easily be challenged.

I can't imagine what would make you think if there was no mileage rule that anyone would start a new show and make the investment necessary for it to be adequate. What would probably happen is either all those shows you think are so tired will go unrecognized or go A Rated but i doubt they will go away and that would make simply not enough exhibitors to suport five/six shows in a way that would improve things, and there is no reason to believe that new would be better.

I asked before and you haven't answered but in what divisions is that you choose to compete? We have already lost every show facility that was in existence in the 70's and 80's and were very popular. As a result of dropping the milegae in Zone 2 from 250 miles to 125 miles, we no longer have Four Seasons, Tewksbury Farm, Suburban Essex, Floradale Farm, Johnson Park or even Homestead. Reducing the mileage gave you Briarwood, Snowbird, Woodedge etc. so you can logically expect that if these get sold to developers there will only be the Sussex Show Grounds,The Horse Park and Freehold park left for shows. I think that could limit your opportunities even more.

Janet, I think that there is a misunderstanding somewhere, unlike in eventing our hunter unrecognized shows are not required to have licensed officials.

Every USEF Sanctioned show including the Local must have licensed officials and meet all the requirements for stewards, judges, first aid, insurance etc.

Those shows which say they follow the USEF Rules are not required to and pick and choose which rules they will follow. Most of the management of these shows have made a choice not to be sanctioned because they do not feel they gain enough from the extra expenses, bookkeeping and hassle. If there is something wrong there is no one to whom you can report it and there is no way that the USEF can enforce anything. As I understand it from past discussions they are simply talking about doing some sort of special points just as we have from NAL, WIHS and M&S. M&S right now does not require that a show be sanctioned by USEF of be able to offer their point classes. The plan to endorse I believe is similar to the M&S plan.

Battle Scarred Veteran

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Mar. 16, 2004 at 02:03 PM.]

Portia
Mar. 16, 2004, 12:10 PM
I don't buy the "there's no point in getting rid of the mileage rule because their won't be any good new shows anyway" argument. If that's the case, then there's no reason not to abolish the mileage rule, since it's not serving any purpose anyway.

The cost hurdles for entry into the market are not that huge. That is, putting on a new show doesn't have to involve a huge capital investment in facilities or equipment. Many good existing facilities are available for lease, and jumps and other equipment can easily be rented. That availability would allow new entries in many markets to test the waters and determine whether demand exists. If so, it might then be feasible to invest substantial capital in new facilities and equipment and recoup the capital investment, or it might not. But a reasonably viable opportunity would be there, which it isn't now in many cases because of the mileage rule.

Plus, there are plenty of existing unrecognized shows that use show facilities that could become recognized, and possibly grow in size and improve facilities, fairly easily.

Janet
Mar. 16, 2004, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Janet, I think that there is a misunderstanding somewhere, unlike in eventing our hunter unrecognized shows are not required to have licensed officials. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No misunderstanding (at least on my side). Unrecognized/unendorsed events are not required to have licensed official.

But _I_ think that using licensed officials is one of the things that make one unrecognized event better than another unrecognized event/show (ESPECILLY the Steward/TD). This is true for dressage (there was a recent thread about that too), eventing, AND hunters.

Given a choice, I will go to the one with licensed officals over one without.

I also think it is ill advised (i.e. a BAD IDEA) for the sanctioning bodies (USEA, USDF or USEF) to do anything to actively encourage "unrecognized" (or "semi-recognized") shows/events to use unlicensed officials. That is how _I_ understand the "Introductory" rating discussed over in eventing. But I may be misreading it.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Ash
Mar. 16, 2004, 12:37 PM
PlotTwist-how wrong you are! There is a facility out near Harrisburg called Swan Lake that is trying to put on A rated shows. Currently they only have one (that has to run during the week) in June. This facility is amazing, truly A rated quality. BUT they can not get dates because of "certain" crappy A show that holds a whole bunch of dates. (I will not mention the show's name as the COTH always gets threatened with a lawsuit every time they are brought up) The person who holds these shows is a desperate defendant of the mileage rule. You know why? She knows that there is no way her shows can compete.

************************************************** **********
Every great man has his disciples, and it is always Judas who writes the biography.
--Oscar Wilde

OAK
Mar. 16, 2004, 12:58 PM
That is not the only show that can not get dates because of that certain horse show manager. They have road blocks in several directions. Which is too bad. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

nycjumper
Mar. 16, 2004, 01:32 PM
Psst - DevilDog, not quite right on the football. AFC teams play other AFC teams during season (in their division & out) & occasionally NFC teams as well just to mix it up. Same goes for NFC teams. AFC champion & NFC champion do play one another in the SuperBowl to determine the NFL champion. Sorry, big football fan here.

Back to mileage rule - I do understand the concerns about having too many shows & not enough competitors. However, I do think that allowing people a greater choice will allow better shows to flourish.

Another question - is it possible that a greater number of shows will lead to lower general costs of showing? I am just thinking about supply/demand theory in economics (greater supply, demand lessens, price drops to entice consumer back, etc). Don't know whether there is room for show managers to drop costs (or are those mandated by USAE/whatever?) Can someone enlighten me?

Janet
Mar. 16, 2004, 01:42 PM
Don't think so. MANY of the show costs are independant of the number of entries:
Judges and other officials
Facility rental
Insurance
Fees.
If you have fewer entries, you either have to RAISE fees to cover the fixed costs, or cut the number of days/rings you run.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

War Admiral
Mar. 16, 2004, 01:50 PM
Yes, I do think the smaller shows, "B" on down, will chop the extraneous fees - the office fees, the non-showing horse fees, the trailer-in fees, etc. Those were only ever invented to increase the profit margin. And - wake up H/J peeps - many, many another USEF discipline manages to run plenty of shows that a clear a profit *without* these extraneous fees!

______________

Can I show under an alter, TOO?

Snowbird
Mar. 16, 2004, 02:36 PM
Cheez! I must be not only on a mountain but another planet. We don't charge any of those extra fees, I never even thought of a parking fee or a trailer-in fee, we get an office fee only if you scratch and we've done the work or if you school over our fences.

It is much more expensive to run shows on your own property than it is to rent one. We have all the year round expenses, electricity fence repairs, stone for the driveway, footing for the rings at $10,000 a season. It would be a lot cheaper to lease the Horse Park believe me.

But, in the bigger picture many of the farms you think of as new are not zoned to permit horse shows. If you lose the farms that do run shows because of a lack of profit then we can lose all the agricultual benefits we have because we lose our place in the Department of Agriculture with reduced acreage used for horses.

But, if the long view doesn't matter to anyone from a show management point of view it won't bother me a twit. We already offer a discount Club plan where Members get $5.00 off on every class they enter for the whole year and we don't charge for any extras and because we have been fortunate with a lot of loyal exhibitors we had 400 at our awards dinner. I would make a larger profit if my shows were unrecognized and could compete very successfully and already do with several unrecognized shows that have chosen to run against our dates.

As said before there is very little that the USEF does for me, and lot more that I do for them. As long as the Rated Divisions continue to disappear there are a few entries we get because we are sanctioned. Not enough to make up for the extra costs.

So to me personally, it doesn't matter at all, I have no protection because I'm sanctioned. The mileage can disappear and my life will not change, and Snowbird will not disappear. I do it because I believe in the Licensing Program, the Drugs and Medication Program and the effort at least to keep the playing field level and equal for everyone.

We started unrecognized 33 years ago and we can do it again if necessary.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Doubleeez
Mar. 16, 2004, 04:18 PM
WA - Office, non-showing day parking fees were instituted not to increase the profit margin but to cover the additional expenses the show incurs. If entries are'nt made ahead of time, then the office has to hire more people to take care of the post entries without undue delay. A non-showing horse takes up a stall and there is no income in entry fees from that horse using the stall, wheras if the horse was showing it would make the stall rental fee the management must pay much more worthy for the show. Day parking fees are a must. There is no stall rental income from these horses and the cleanup after them requires additional help to straighten out the mess they have left, thus additional expense for the show. So if you talk to management you will see that the additional fees required DO NOT add anything of significance to the profit picture.;

mst
Mar. 16, 2004, 05:42 PM
I think abolishing the mileage rule is a must do. If to horseshows are right next to each other, its up to the managers to make it more appealing to the exhibitors than the neighbors show.We as exhibitors would be given a choice rather than be forced to attend(not that we have to attend but you get the point). With this competiveness, entries fees would drop, more prize money or prizes would be given, and exhibitors in a whole would be a lot more friendly being in an enviroment where they would like to be. I know alot of people intrested in putting on some pretty fun and exciting shows but can't because of the mileage rules. We also need some new blood in the management department which nis hard to get when all of the dates are taken. It's called free enterprise!

mst
Mar. 16, 2004, 05:45 PM
Snowbird- I think you are different from the other managers. You have horseshows for fun, try to please exhibitors, and want everyone to come back again

Snowbird
Mar. 16, 2004, 08:15 PM
Well then, I guess that's the kind of different I don't mind. You're right that's what I care about. I see all those new riders who have never had an experience and I want it to be a good one.

I can't eat any more, than I do (I could eat less) and I don't need fancy clothes or cars. I'd rather see some of my kids do well being happy than being horse of the year.

Battle Scarred Veteran

plottwist
Mar. 16, 2004, 09:09 PM
Ash, How wrong I am? I guess I should have specified that I do not see anyone in NJ trying to step up and run horse shows.

Snowbird already named some shows that have gone the way of the dodo and I could add to her list, Coppergate, Gil, Hunt Cap, Chester Rotary, and one other in MOrris county who's name escapes me.

I don't think NJ would turn into the land of the AA horse show if the mileage rule was abolished. It's the land of the C rated shows right now, punctuated by some A and, what maybe three really big AA's?

There's a definite divide between the A folks and the C folks here, although C folks do attend the A and AA shows as well. The C folks stay local, and the A folks travel out of NJ. Especially in the winter. And can you blame them?

I think the problem here could be some schooling shows going USEF C-rated on the same day as an already established USEF C-rated show. That would split entries and would not benefit either show.

Where I think one of the ways the mileage rule should be ammended concerns the actual mileage versus as the crow flies mileage like the folks around the Great Lakes have right now.

Beezer
Mar. 16, 2004, 09:36 PM
While I am appreciative of this great exchange of ideas and have my own opinions -- which I will keep to myself since once again Poltroon has done a Vulcan mind-meld with me and stated them http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif -- I do want to make just a couple of observations:

1) To whoever said it takes only 20 minutes to drive the 40 miles between shows, I wanna know just how straight a line that is and just how fast you're driving, because you sure as heck could not do that ANYWHERE in the Southern California area with a van or horse trailer....

2) If any of you truly believe that eliminating the mileage rule will result in having similar-rated horse shows trying to compete "next door" to each other on "the same weekend," you folks need to get some smarter show managers.

***** Currently assigned to the mouth-gaping, lip-flapping, head-twisting, wood-chewing, boot-shredding phase of baby greenie ownership! *****

plottwist
Mar. 16, 2004, 09:42 PM
Beezer, it would seem that show managers should be smarter, but alas, the almighty buck calls!! Here in the land of the C's, this is a real possiblity!

Snowbird
Mar. 16, 2004, 11:12 PM
There is a limited and definable number of horses and there are only 52 weeks or 104 week end days. There are about 200 barns fighting over about 300 horses that are resident in New Jersey. If we gave each barn one day on the weekend we wouldn;t have enough days.

As the the rather elitist attitude toward C Shows, I think it's because here in Zone 2, New Jersey at least we have some very weird parents, they think that school comes first, whether they can afford it ot not they would never send their teenagers down to Florida with a trainer to run amuck.

After reading the drug thread you can bet your pippie that my granddaughter will never be on that trip. And, even when we thought it was safe my girls weren't going to tour for 4/5 months.

Most of our exhibitors could afford it and a lot have the horses but that's just not what they want from the sport.

There are people who like those 20 ring marathons and don't care what it costs because it's important to be there. They don't mind being on the road or maybe have a temporary home down there.

There are people who are more conservative and just don't care about horse of the year. For them this is a recreational family sports activity.

So, like on every issue it's different strokes for different folks. We all have our own view of how to raise children, how adults should behave. And, that is what freedom is about. If you water down the competition so much with no mileage they won't fight about they'll just switch sports.

For a lot of these people if the C Shows are gone so are they.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Zadella
Mar. 17, 2004, 07:34 AM
I was just reading all of these comments and want to put one little comment in....Erin, I may be wrong as I can not check the schedules at the moment but it is true that the Redskins and the Raven are about 30 miles apart BUT I am almost positive that the NFL schedules their home games on different weekends....as they do with the NYC team and as baseball does in cities with multiple teams...from a traffic and competition for fans standpoint it just makes sense. But those same reasons may not apply to the horse show world.

I will however say that I do believe that the mileage rule needs to be amended (as does the whole rulebook...best by eliminating about half of the rules!!!). I support the task force finding out what makes sense. We are at a crossroads in many ways in the the horse industry and we had best think through ALL the ramifications of whatever steps we take! We don't need to be correcting our steps next year. We need to be thinking of how best to keep the folks we have and how to bring others into our sport.

SoEasy
Mar. 17, 2004, 08:47 AM
The NYC NY teams both play in the same stadium - in NJ. Yes, they are scheduled to be home on different weekends, as running two games at once is a tad difficult.

Checking the 2003 schedules from www.nfl.com (http://www.nfl.com) - on 9/28/03, Washington played New England at home, and Baltimore played Kansas City at home. I did not look closer than that.

Pet Psychic
Mar. 17, 2004, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beezer:
Poltroon has done a Vulcan mind-meld with me... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Uhm, excuse me, but as a licensed pet psychic, the only mind-melding service permitted on this bulletin board will be provided by me. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Pet Psychic says: "If the horse is too much animal for you, try a gerbil."

Snowbird
Mar. 17, 2004, 10:37 AM
I'll have to challenge that Pet Psychic because
as a Hungarian with gypsy genes I have the automatic capacity of psychic powers since I come from a long line of Oracles. I too can meld minds or draw on my inheritance from Attila the Hun so that if they don't meld they're gone.

Please remember that Hungarians are so psychic and eternal that is why we invented Vampires and Werewolves because we are too stubborn to die and God hasn't found an appropriate place for us. Lucifer threw us out of Hell as trouble makers and we're none of us saintly enough for paradise.

Battle Scarred Veteran

tardy
Mar. 17, 2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Please remember that Hungarians are so psychic and eternal that is why we invented Vampires...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that Vampires were invented in Transylvania (Romania). In any case, it is unlikely that either Hungary or Romania have mileage rules.

Janet
Mar. 17, 2004, 02:01 PM
Transylvania was part of Hungary until after WWI. So, the vampires were Hungarian.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

[This message was edited by Janet on Mar. 17, 2004 at 04:25 PM.]

mst
Mar. 17, 2004, 03:36 PM
I take a bit of offense of the comment about us florida bound exhibitors. I have puchased a farm here in Wellington so that it costs our clients no more to show(OTHER THAN A PLANE RIDE) than it does up north. Why shouldn't they be warm and happy as well as the horses? Thats why the mileage rule should be erased so that exhibitors have the right to go to shows that they enjoy wherever they may be

Snowbird
Mar. 17, 2004, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A place where accountability is inconceivable<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was curious Ash, so I looked at your Public Profile and I must say it gave me my biggest Hee-Haw in days. As someone who somehow seems to be unavoidably accountable for almost everything in the universe that goes wrong I would love to know your definition of that phrase so I could figure out how to adopt it for myself.

Janet: Thank you, yes! in those days the Hungarians and the gypsies I think can claim title to even Count Dracula. My Mom told me it was because the Hungarians were too stubborn and hard working to even lay down and rest when they were dead.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I take a bit of offense of the comment about us florida bound exhibitors. I have puchased a farm here in Wellington so that it costs our clients no more to show(OTHER THAN A PLANE RIDE) than it does up north. Why shouldn't they be warm and happy as well as the horses? Thats why the mileage rule should be erased so that exhibitors have the right to go to shows that they enjoy wherever they may be<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I apologize if it was me, I'm afraid I was feeling very jealous thinking of all of you while I'm watching it snow, and the wind blow the snow over where we have plowed and knowing there is another snow storm coming yet this week.

I was envious and felt that it wouldn't be fair for some people to have everything so perfect when here its Spring and we can't evn see the grass or hear a bird yet.

I'm sorry if I sounded mean spirited and I hope you can be compassionate towards someone who feels like this is the Tundra in the Artic spring. What I want to know is where are all those scientists who were busting our chops about global warming? If ti doesn't stop snowing soon I'm going to the supermarket and open every single one of their aerosol cans so if you read about a old lady on Schooleys Mountain going to jail with Martha, send chocolate cookies.

Battle Scarred Veteran

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Mar. 17, 2004 at 07:15 PM.]

swanlake
Mar. 17, 2004, 09:10 PM
I can guarrantee you that as a manager of a facility we have put over 5 million dollars into, it would help us. We can get 2 "A" dates all year 1 in June and 1 in July for 3 days. We will continue to run quality shows but are blocked by 1 day "B" shows and other "A" shows that are clear across the state. It is time to revamp. The word is that the new facility in NH is going to sell and become condos. If you are looking for wonderful facilities with great footing an a welcoming attitude. Fix the mileage rule and the cream will come to the top. Smaller farms will still run "B" shows and I truly believe that's where this belongs. It's really a shame to invite new facilities to arise and tie their hands behind their back.
How about selling dates? Managers are taking a date belonging to another show and selling it for their benefit to another horse show. This does not benefit the USEF or its members. It benefits the individual and I thought if you paid dues, all were equal.

CellosPride
Mar. 18, 2004, 06:50 AM
Doublegeez -- Maybe the solution is some sort of formula that could take into account the equestrian population concentration of certain geographic areas, urban vs. rural, numbers who would show at certain different levels, maybe development goals for the sport (e.g., an area weak in jumpers might offer incentives to develop the divisions in that geographic area, while pressing forward with the popular divisions). Why wouldn't something like that work? I lived and showed in Zones 1 and 2, can't speak too much on Zone 3, and I have also showed in Florida and Northern California Zone 10 and the midwest. These geographic areas are all so different. In California, for example, it seems like the more shows, the more horses and riders come out of the woodwork, to the point there are classes for every age group of junior rider (e.g., 8 & under, 10-11, 12-13, etc.) Certain parts of Northern and Southern California have pretty developed horse markets as well, which seem to flow from the healthy horse show activity, whereas in Florida, once WPB and Ocala are over and everyone goes home, the horse market is still relatively rural, for the most part lower levels of shows, and, well I guess only a Californian can say it, pretty backward and primitive in terms of the horse sales market (Wellington excluded). This is not to say there are not good trainers and horse show barns here, but it seems many travel a lot from the local area in the off season. The shows in California produce some fairly high money horse sales across the market, whereas in Florida I have never seen so many horses sell for such pitifully low prices during the off season. If the Mileage Rule were rethought, maybe the shakeout would be a better off season horse market in Florida (and I am not really addressing Wellington here, but rather almost the entire remainder of the State of Florida which could be brought up to the good horse market level enjoyed in Wellington all year). I also remember how different the market was in NY, NJ, CT area, from both Florida and California. It seems the goal should be more interest in the sport and more business for those who do this as a living while maintaining quality of life for the horses. More and better quality shows bring more exhibitors bring more people looking for horses to buy and lesson people bring a better economic life for all -- including the quality of lives for so many horses that as it is never see the show ring or a good life. So, I wonder if maybe there were a way to make a formula that could work to take into account the different geographic and other factors, while not restraining competition, and while promoting local horsey areas with enough (in number and frequency) top quality recognized shows, this would be a solution?

[This message was edited by CellosPride on Mar. 18, 2004 at 09:20 AM.]

Doubleeez
Mar. 18, 2004, 07:22 AM
Cello - This would be a giant step in the right direction. For the hunters and jumpers, USEF should do a study on how many horses attend what shows and where the horses are from. All this info can be had from the Steward's reports and the entry blanks.
For example, in the business world Safeway Stores just doesn't go out and plunk down a supermarket without research. They do geographical studies, population counts, competition surveys, etc. to make their decisions on where to build their stores. You will see in the supermarket world two or three of them fairly close together only when the traffic warrants. In other parts of the country it is hard to find even one of them. It is this type of work that the mileage task force should be doing now to come up with a plausible solution to the problem.
When you look back and see HOW LONG we have been living under the current zone geographicsal lines, it makes me wonder if USEF will ever look forward far enough to anticipate possible changes that may be necessary.

CellosPride
Mar. 18, 2004, 07:36 AM
Doubleeez -- When people were talking about what happens if there are too many shows too close together, what first came to mind was what you see on Jewelers Row. Horses and jewelry are both "luxury items," so to speak in economists lingo (though we all know there are a lot of horse-poor people), yet it seems with jewelers, you see all of them, several high priced stores, all side by side in the same location, and this somehow creates a synergy whereby they all make more profit and do more and better business with the competition located closeby rather than without. I am not saying jewelers and horse shows are exactly alike, but I think the system is worth an in depth study to see exactly what is going on currently, what factors are involved, and what could be done to improve it. Another thing, as you mention about the Zone lines, we see political districts redrawn all the time to flow with the shifting population and different factors and achieve (so they say) some form of fair distribution, so maybe that is worth looking into as well in that there have been several census' taken showing geographic population shifts and migrations while the Zone boundaries have never changed. Certainly not all parts of this big Country of ours are alike.

Doubleeez
Mar. 18, 2004, 07:45 AM
Cello -
Your "Jeweler's Row" theory is not unlike the placment of food stores. If the traffic permits, put another jewelry store right next to the one that's already there.
But the problem in the horse show world is that we simply don't know if the traffic would permit two shows being closer together than the current restrictions allow.
This is why I say that the Task Force should be studying the attendance of the existing shows to see where new lines might be drawn.

Portia
Mar. 18, 2004, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by swanlake:
How about selling dates? Managers are taking a date belonging to another show and selling it for their benefit to another horse show. This does not benefit the USEF or its members. It benefits the individual and I thought if you paid dues, all were equal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is an excellent point, swanlake. Selling dates is a big issue, and one the Task Force will hopefully examine closely.

Doubleez, that is a good point too, but any study would have to include attendance at all shows, not just the recognized ones. There are smaller unrecognized shows going on all the time, and that traffic/demand needs to be counted in the analysis too.

[This message was edited by Portia on Mar. 18, 2004 at 11:20 AM.]

Silver Bells
Mar. 18, 2004, 09:50 AM
The sale of dates should not be allowed, but if the mileage rule is abolished... this would stop!
I personally, would love to see more shows at facilities like Swan Lake. I would rather see people put money into their horse shows/grounds, than in someone's pocket for the purchase of a date!

Snowbird
Mar. 18, 2004, 10:35 AM
The reality is that this became a problem when some brilliant person decided to register Management Groups with AHSA. There are in New Jersey and Pennsylvania shows that would have normally gone back on the market with the old "contact" system because those people have long since passed away, moved away or become incapacitated.

Just goes to prove that just because something is a NEW idea or because it makes the bookkeeping easier doesn't mean its a good idea. Now, if you have a falling out between members of the group it's just about impossible to remove them from the group. It requires a letter from them, and why would they ever want to send that letter?

However, with the convenience of a Management Group it so easy to just have the new person part of that group and therefore continue with the show into infinity. So while show dates might have had a priority for a lifetime, that did eventually end and now it never ends but goes on into perpetuity.

I got my dates the hard way, one I don't really want A Shows, I can't imagine a worse nightmare than having 3/400 horses with riders, oeners, trainers, braiders etc. runing around on the farm all night and day. AND, if the weather is inclement the amount of ground damage would be more expensive to fix than the net profit i.e. the reason so many have left the scene.

We are so far out in the boonies that I pretty much can have a C Rated show whenever I like because we're so far away from everyone else. The disadvantage is we don't have a big draw of local horse people because no one keeps horses at home any more north of Somerville Circle.

I would rather run 3 C Shows than have one A Show for three-five days as stated above. If you insist on A Shows then you have to look at what farms are already running shows, just like the Zoning Laws that do not permit most farms to offer horse shows or even riding lessons.

There are Pennsylvnia Shows in New Jersey, New Jersey shows in Pennsylvania. They were passed on very simply because a member of the Management Group still wants to run them and there is always someone who can buy into the Management Group.

One solution is to not allow the shows to move from a particular site without application and reason and they would have to get special permissions. There are shows that apply for one address and block off other shows there, and then move the show later. SURE there are scumbags who want to monopolize the market but the AHSA gave them the tools to do it.

For example let's say there is a AA Rated Show Management Group and they have a show date that doesn't do too well, so they lease that show date to another Management Group by adding their name. Here the big problem by be liability in case the new group doesn't pay their bills so it gets a new name and after two years who remembers?

Portia it's not just the shows that are unrecognized that should be counted, because most of those people would change the numbers but they aren't going to sanctioned shows because they don't want to. What they need to look at is the number of avauilble place that are Zoned and good even legally operate a horse show as related to the number of competitive exhibitors.

Here in New Jersey for example we have a superb Horse Shows Association that gives wonderful awards and it is open to everyone recognized and unrecognized their membership max is 400. It's the same 400 that belong to all the other related associations. So you can't count that as 1600 or 2000 potential exhibitors.

North of Somerville Circle which is more than half the state of New Jersey ther are only two places that can hold horse shows legally by zoning laws. Where our date problem is, is that these same 400 people live mostly in south New Jersey and down there there are six places legally allowed to have horse shows.

So combined we have 400 competitors and 8 show places in the entire state. With no mileage control or date control that would mean no more than 50 competitors per show unless they can two shows a day. Afterall who would want to run on the bad dates if the Calendar was open.

Let's say Briarwood farm has 240 horses in a day and Hunter Farm or Duncraven ran the same classes on the same day but they were an hour closer to home. All the show grounds are equally good, all the equipment they all have is equally good and all the show management is equally cooperative and pleasant with good prizes and judges. What do you think would
happen?

I left Snowbird out because we're too far north to be competitive. So then, there might not be a Snowbird Show series at all.

The Hunt Cap Shows are still going but John Marciano is retired and has nothing to do with them and his wife has either leased them or sold them and they run at Duncraven on and on and on.

That's the kink in the water line don't blame those of us who actually own a farm and have show dates we got legitimately and are still running our own shows. We'll die soon enough to make the date free unless we add the next person into the Management Group.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Snowbird
Mar. 18, 2004, 10:41 AM
Geez! Ash I didn't think it had anything to do with me or the mileage rule. As a Gemini I go off in tangents and my curiosity was peeked by the statement. Now that you've explained it to me I do understand and my condolences, it must be very difficult to cope with a working situation like that.

Although, I must admit when it comes to the kids on the farm there is no question "Not ME" whoever that may be, is the busiest and most industrious one on the farm.

I had lightened up Ash, sorry that was my attempt at humor, I apologize if you didn't take it that way.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Ash
Mar. 18, 2004, 12:45 PM
My apologies Snowbird! I totally took your post the wrong way. I had no idea you were joking. As a fellow Gemini, you understand how we can be a little rash and emotional sometimes http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I will delete my snarky post on the previous page.

For what it is worth, it is not the people I work with who have the accountability problem, it is the people I have been hired to help. There are some days where I fear for the future of the human race! Can anyone ever accept the fact that they just screwed up!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

************************************************** **********
Every great man has his disciples, and it is always Judas who writes the biography.
--Oscar Wilde

Snowbird
Mar. 18, 2004, 01:25 PM
No problem if we Gemini don't understand each other no one else ever will. Now you can understand my dropped words and wild tangents. Throw a little Hungarian gypsy in there and you know why I have some serious flights of fancy.

However, I have never figured out how since I was nine years old not to be held accountable for any mistakes made even by my generation.

Which is why your signature captured my curiosity. On your other signature did you ever consider the fact that if Judas hadn't done what he did then Jesus couldn't have fulfilled the prophecy. So, having Judas do my biography might be better than the one that might be written by someone who I think is a friend.

Well so much for a senile senior Gemini moment back to chores and reality. I will tell you philosophically that I think God does that i.e. making the future look hopeless so that when you get old like me you don't mind if you die. I agree and also fear for the future of civilization with pacifity they seem to accept less than logical basic principles.

Battle Scarred Veteran

poltroon
Mar. 18, 2004, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
What I want to know is where are all those scientists who were busting our chops about global warming? If ti doesn't stop snowing soon I'm going to the supermarket and open every single one of their aerosol cans so if you read about a old lady on Schooleys Mountain going to jail with Martha, send chocolate cookies.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they're all here with me in Northern California, where it's been in the 80's for weeks. In March. When it's supposed to be pouring.

I make some killer oatmeal chocolate chip cookies, Snowbird. We'll take care of you! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Beezer, we have got to meet up someday! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Snowbird
Mar. 18, 2004, 02:53 PM
Start baking! Saturday is supposed to be the first day of spring and they are forecasting another 5/8 inches of snow tonight into tomorrow. It's probably warmer in Alaska. They said if we get global warming New Jersey wiould be 70 year round I can live with that; even 65.

Battle Scarred Veteran

OAK
Mar. 18, 2004, 04:15 PM
Snowbird

I believe that the Hunt Cap dates are still held by John Marciano's ex-wife and she still has control of the horse show.

Snowbird
Mar. 18, 2004, 05:01 PM
Does she still attend them and is she helping to manage them?

Battle Scarred Veteran

OAK
Mar. 19, 2004, 11:52 AM
I am not sure I understand. Is there a rule that the person whose horse it has to be in attendence at the show. Maybe she is what difference does it make. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Snowbird
Mar. 19, 2004, 12:32 PM
It's to the point that it's not the mileage rule that is the problem but the problematic situation with Management Groups that can pass show dates on into infinity. It should be possible since Hunt Cap is no longer running the Shows that Duncraven could apply and be granted the dates directly.

Just as we have a ton of other shows where the original contact has either passed away or has retired and no longer even lives in the state, so they certainly cannot attend or supervise and that date should have gone into the open pool of available dates.

There are situations where the farm itself is long gone, there is no one from Management around and yet that Farm name still exists on a show in order to keep it into perpetuity.

For example if I sold my farm the new owners should be able to apply and have the existing priority as long as the show in held in the same place. BUT, if those show dates were moved to another township then they should be considered as new shows without a priority unless and if I am actually still running the show and am the person financially responsible for the show.

I would also add I could provide a valid argument for the fact that since the responsible management was no longer the owner of the property unless I was the show manager involved in their continuence that those dates also should be considered new shows and be on the open calendar.

We as managers do not own the dates we only have a priority if we run on those dates. Cancelling or corrupting the mileage concept to me is like amputating a foot because of an infection on one toe.

Battle Scarred Veteran

Black Market Radio
Mar. 19, 2004, 12:49 PM
NYCJumper, Thanks. I do kind of zone out when hubby rambles on about football, I DO try and learn but it gets too confusing. And he picked up on SJ after watching 1 GP without asking an questions!

Devilpups (http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/angelgregory87)
You have got to be the WORST Pirate I have ever heard of.
Ah, but you HAVE heard of me!