PDA

View Full Version : Let's Talk About The Mileage Rule



Lord Helpus
Nov. 20, 2011, 07:32 PM
I know that the color of show coats and deciding on a show name for your horse are important stuff, but unless there are quality, afforable shows within a reasonable distance to go to, the rest won't matter.

My opinion:

The mileage rule protects show managers. It does not help, and it actually hurts, the exhibitor. Due to the makeup of the various boards on the USHJA, show managers, and those sympathetic to them (for whatever reason -- use your imagination here) have had the clout to block any movements to do away with the rule.

Jump Canada has just drastically limited their Mileage Rule; show managers may "protect" two weeks in one year -- and thats it. (I think I've got that right...)

That sounds fair to me. I would even feel comfortable in maintaining the Mileage Rule for Heritage shows (Devon, Upperville etc.) Those shows need to be preserved because they are a link to the past and highlight what is so special about our sport.

But, as for the rest? -- It should be gone. Whatever need it was supposed to fulfill when it was instituted no longer exists. It allows managers to put on mediocre shows charging incredible fees and prices because they do not have any competition. It also forces us to drive hours farther than we should have to -- and with the cost of gas, that is unacceptable.

With Annual Meetings coming up soon, we need to have our voices heard. No longer should we be the huddled [voiceless] masses. Bitching to each other doesn't change anything. We need to tell TPTB that the MIleage Rule is totally unacceptable and needs to be repealed effective immediately.

Anyone else want to add their $.02?

Peggy
Nov. 20, 2011, 08:27 PM
Not only does it unfairly protect show managers from having other shows pop up in their area, but the BNSM (big name show managers) often seem able to conveniently buy a date from someone else when they want to add a show.

Take a look at the licensee names on the Blenheim Equisports shows. At least one was once a Huntington Beach show: http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/competitions/compsearches/compSearchResults.aspx?pageDescription=calendar&year=2011&cid=4977

Langer Equestrian Group just announced that the two-week series at LAEC is now going to be a three week series, with the last show over Thanksgiving week (along with one that same weekend in Vegas). I don't know if Burbank is too close to Santa Barbara (Turkey show), but it's got to be too close to the existing show that weekend at Industry Hills. So, presumably someone will just buy that date.

We don't so much have the issue of driving since our barn is kinda close to a number of facilities, but not really close to anything, but I can see that being a problem in some areas.

And now back to typing my test.

NotAtTheBarn
Nov. 20, 2011, 08:29 PM
I agree completely, this needs to be changed! I am a broke college student who will have to travel out of state next summer to attend some higher-quality shows where there is better footing and safer stabling. I wish that we had more shows to choose from and that the prices wouldn't be so extreme. Really, it should not cost me a quarter's worth of tuition to show my horse for one week! How do we go about getting our voices heard? (True question - I am a newer person to jumpers!)

AliCat
Nov. 20, 2011, 08:51 PM
I feel like there are always several options within an hour on any given weekend, and those are rated shows. Now all the rage is fancier schooling shows that have popped up in the same area. How many shows do we need?

HGem
Nov. 20, 2011, 08:52 PM
I never frequented the rated circle on any type of regular basis, and have only heard of the mileage rule here on COTH - but my reaction is that it is stuipid. I can see how there would be some "benefits" to it for some people. However I think it does not make much business sense. It's almost like giving the show a monopoly. Last time I checked you can have a Sheetz right next to a WaWa. And it causes competition which makes better services/products for the consumer....which you know, support the business.

But me being here in SE PA with no close desire or ability to do much beyond the local stuff - I have a whole big list of quality shows to attend. Every weekend if I would so choose. If there is a peition to sign though, I would sign it!

War Admiral
Nov. 20, 2011, 09:05 PM
It adversely affects other disciplines as well as just H/J. Last year, for the Saddlebred hunters, the Regional Championships for our region were the SAME WEEKEND as the National Championships b/c of date protection. 3 guesses how that one went.

The whole thing is just absurd.

If there's one thing that I suspect exhibitors from top to bottom can all agree on, it's getting rid of the mileage rule (though I agree w/ Lord Helpus on protecting heritage shows).

So, who wants to do the rule change proposal?

Janet
Nov. 20, 2011, 09:09 PM
Eventing manages to function without the mileage rule.

The Area Council (kind of analogous to the Zone) makes most of the scheduling decisions, subject to approval by the national office.

Horseymama
Nov. 20, 2011, 09:19 PM
You know I'm here! I completely agree with you Lord Helpus, and I have been complaining about this stupid and absurd rule to anyone who would listen including our governing bodies FOR YEARS. I am so glad that Jump Canada appears to be leading the way in the reformation of this ridiculous monopoly that harms our sport. Hopefully we here in the U.S. will soon follow suit.

Lord Helpus
Nov. 20, 2011, 09:24 PM
It adversely affects other disciplines as well as just H/J. Last year, for the Saddlebred hunters, the Regional Championships for our region were the SAME WEEKEND as the National Championships b/c of date protection. 3 guesses how that one went.

The whole thing is just absurd.

If there's one thing that I suspect exhibitors from top to bottom can all agree on, it's getting rid of the mileage rule (though I agree w/ Lord Helpus on protecting heritage shows).

So, who wants to do the rule change proposal?


I think we need to have a committee person who is against the rule to put in a rule change proposal, don't we? Once we locate such a person, then we can get a petition going.

I do not have a clue how to do the part about finding a committee member to initiate the proposal. Does anyone else?

S A McKee
Nov. 20, 2011, 09:36 PM
I think we need to have a committee person who is against the rule to put in a rule change proposal, don't we? Once we locate such a person, then we can get a petition going.

I do not have a clue how to do the part about finding a committee member to initiate the proposal. Does anyone else?

Any USEF member can initiate a rule change proposal.
You don't need a committee member to make the proposal.

But for all practical purposes unless USHJA supports your proposal you haven't got a snowball's chance in you know where...

And the people who will be voting on this at the USEF and USHJA conventions are likely to be the same group who this change will negatively impact.

Petition won't do a thing.

You need to convince show management that dumping this rule would be a good thing.

In the long run it probably is the right way to go but in the short run it would cause all sorts of havoc.

In some areas the immediate response would probably be more shows than the number of exhibitors can support.This can cause shows to not fill divisions and then shows fail and stop running.
Nobody is happy.

Perhaps a change to the nuber of miles in between shows would be useful. You know, if it is currently 200 miles, change that to 100.

And if there were more B and C shows then the mileage rule problem would not be as much of an issue. In the NE, there are more B and C shows than A shows and that means that every weekend there are many shows all within a reasonable distance of each other.

chunky munky
Nov. 20, 2011, 09:47 PM
About every three or so years somebody starts raving about all the mileage regulations. On the surface it appears to be a problem, but the issues are much more complex than that.
The mileage rule will not harm the mega managers that own 5 and more dates per year, especially those that have 3 and 4 weeks in a row. The people that will be hurt if there are changes are the little management teams that try to run a nice A-AA show with 3 or under rings and have a one week show. That is who will fall by the wayside.
The rules are not that difficult to conform to for C and B rated shows. There is the rub. In most areas outside of Zone 1 & 2) these shows do not exist in any numbers. Nobody cares to attend them. They prefer to go to unrated shows so they do not have to pay all the membership fees, etc. with the USHJA and USEF that keep escalating. That is who the competition is to the recognized shows.
I do not believe that many managers would like to run an AA rated show within 100 miles of another. That is a good way to lose a quick 25K. Years ago we had a number of poorly run A shows that were just so people could get quick points, but that really no longer exists. I only know of a handful of shows that I would call generic.
The average person has no idea what it costs to run an AA rated show. it is a crazy amount of money, most that has to be fronted long before the entry/stall $ comes in. I say any body that wants to run an AA rated show step right up. Unless you own your facility and stalls and tents and jumps, etc. it may quickly go the way of the dinasaur. The only ones that can do it are the ones that have full time staff, etc. The numbers do not work.
Numbers of people attending A rated shows are not growing.
So try running a budget spread sheet for an AA rated show and then tell me you want to step up and run one with another 50 miles away.

Give and Take
Nov. 20, 2011, 11:59 PM
My zone rep, is also an investor in the local A/AA shows, a well as having a successful training business.

The drama here is more around having a trainer be part of the show managemet team that hires the judges.

We have an active A/AA system between Portland, Seattle and BC. Eliminating the mileage rule wouldn't do much around here imo because of the cost to run the shows and the small number of facilities capable of hosting 2-500 horses.

We don't have a B rated system in the Portland area, but there are some nice shows put on in the Seattle area - but that's 3+ hours from me.

Maybe the discussion should be at the zone level and support programs for quality B and C rated systems. Clearly defining the desired outcome by eliminating the mileage rule and what we want the show season to look like is what I'd like to see.

vxf111
Nov. 21, 2011, 01:00 AM
I personally think the mileage rule has outlived its usefulness and now only serves to protect certain show managers who own all the dates and can make everyone else either go to their shows or grovel to share the dates. I'd rather have the competition! At least in this area, where there are so many riders!

War Admiral
Nov. 21, 2011, 06:35 AM
So try running a budget spread sheet for an AA rated show and then tell me you want to step up and run one with another 50 miles away.

See my previous post, Chunky. Suppose you were an AA show manager, paid the extra money to USEF, ASHA and the sponsor to offer a regional championship and NOBODY CAME... because the national championship show had protected dates the same weekend that could not be changed...

In that scenario, it's us, the exhibitors, who are being penalized, b/c the AA show that offered the regional championship for the Saddlebred hunters was so livid b/c nobody showed up that they cancelled the entire Saddlebred Hunter division. Forever. Which gives us one less chance to qualify for nationals and those opportunities are thin enough on the ground anyway in this zone/region. :no:

There's really no excuse for shows to be pretty much FORCED by a USEF rule to d*ck their own exhibitors around. :no:

fordtraktor
Nov. 21, 2011, 08:00 AM
About every three or so years somebody starts raving about all the mileage regulations. On the surface it appears to be a problem, but the issues are much more complex than that.
The mileage rule will not harm the mega managers that own 5 and more dates per year, especially those that have 3 and 4 weeks in a row. The people that will be hurt if there are changes are the little management teams that try to run a nice A-AA show with 3 or under rings and have a one week show. That is who will fall by the wayside.
The rules are not that difficult to conform to for C and B rated shows. There is the rub. In most areas outside of Zone 1 & 2) these shows do not exist in any numbers. Nobody cares to attend them. They prefer to go to unrated shows so they do not have to pay all the membership fees, etc. with the USHJA and USEF that keep escalating. That is who the competition is to the recognized shows.
I do not believe that many managers would like to run an AA rated show within 100 miles of another. That is a good way to lose a quick 25K. Years ago we had a number of poorly run A shows that were just so people could get quick points, but that really no longer exists. I only know of a handful of shows that I would call generic.
The average person has no idea what it costs to run an AA rated show. it is a crazy amount of money, most that has to be fronted long before the entry/stall $ comes in. I say any body that wants to run an AA rated show step right up. Unless you own your facility and stalls and tents and jumps, etc. it may quickly go the way of the dinasaur. The only ones that can do it are the ones that have full time staff, etc. The numbers do not work.
Numbers of people attending A rated shows are not growing.
So try running a budget spread sheet for an AA rated show and then tell me you want to step up and run one with another 50 miles away.

The theory (I spent several years as an antitrust and competition lawyer so this is near and dear to my heart) is not that there will be more shows, but that doing away with the mileage rule will make the shows in existence more competitive from a price perspective.

If prices/lack of service get too high, shows would face the threat of new competition, and that concern operates as a real constraint on prices in a well-functioning market. Now, there is no such constraint due in part to the mileage rule and we can see the effects in our show fees.

Of course, the entire picture is more complicated than just the mileage rule, but I would be interested to have a good economist do a regression analysis on the numbers. I would not at all be surprised if they don't look so great for the mileage rule and its effects on competition. We will never have access to the necessary data, however, so that's all a matter of theory/conjecture -- it is impossible to say without data how extensive the effects on competition have been.

In some markets there may be enough of a base, or a different take on offering a show (the Saratoga jumper shows, etc) that a show manager might choose to offer a new, competing show.

And may the best show win. Some of those little shows that might be hurt? They are not awesome shows if they can't draw in clients on their own merits. The only reason they exist still is the mileage rule. We could be replacing them with something better.

I think the mileage rule is blatant protectionism at its worst. That is a personal view, however, not legal advice.

S A McKee
Nov. 21, 2011, 09:15 AM
In some markets there may be enough of a base, or a different take on offering a show (the Saratoga jumper shows, etc) that a show manager might choose to offer a new, competing show.

And may the best show win. Some of those little shows that might be hurt? They are not awesome shows if they can't draw in clients on their own merits. The only reason they exist still is the mileage rule. We could be replacing them with something better.

I think the mileage rule is blatant protectionism at its worst. That is a personal view, however, not legal advice.

The little shows that might be hurt may be the ones that run as B and C shows and make showing a lot more affordable.
Using the situation in areas that have C and B shows you can go to at least one show a week close by and in the summer as many as 4 shows all within 75 miles of each other.
In Zone 2 most of the zone prize winners and those who qualify for zone finals got their points at C and B shows that are designed to only run zone and regional association classes.

If the mileage rule goes away there is nothing to stop the mega managers from buying up the licenses for the smaller shows as the little show manager probaby will want out of the game at that point. A consequence in this case might be the end of C and B shows and less exhibitors participating because of the increased expense of an AA rated mega show.

There will be many unintended consequences and the problems that surface will be different in each geographic area.

Simply ending the mileage rule is not the answer. It requires a lot more thought and planning.

War Admiral :
If a show manager was so foolish to try and schedule against an established show they should reaiize things might not go so well.

DMK
Nov. 21, 2011, 09:27 AM
I think SA McKee, LH and CM all make valid points. Even though I am in favor of limiting the mileage rule (perhaps through having up to 4-6 weeks protected then phasing out to 2 weeks like Canada over several years), I do recognize that you should be careful what you ask for, because it doesn't mean tomorrow that there will be good shows that are more affordable and it will be sunshine and roses all around. As SA M pointed out, the sort out process will be painful for all involved, and it most likely will mean the larger show managers will outnumber the smaller ones because the larger operations CAN do the things exhibitors want generally more efficiently and for lower unit cost (in theory almost everyone hates the idea of Walmart ... while they shop there). But like LH said, at some point you have to accept that the large managers will then have to compete a little bit more head to head for each other's business. I have no doubt that right now WEF and HITS do compete with each other for business, but maybe right now in it's in the margins of inches not feet?

A few years ago I used to think changing the mileage rule would be as close to a silver bullet as we had for what ailed the industry, no I'm not so sure. I think it's gone so far beyond that with the new economy. Aside from mileage and large show managers, I think the business is chasing away the existing middle class and it's certainly not bringing in new (non wealthy) people in any significant numbers. I just don't think changing the mileage rule is going to significantly affect that problem. CM is right, people would far rather go to a local show than pay that money, and costs are not going to be cut by even 20% if you dump the mileage rule. Chances are cost isn't going down at all. it just will not go forward at the same pace.

Lord Helpus
Nov. 21, 2011, 10:02 AM
So far we have heard from NJ/Pa people who do not have a problem with the status quo because there are already plenty of shows to go to every weekend.

And we have heard fromt her PNW which has a sparse H/J base and huge distances to travel anyway.

What about the middle ground? People who often have to drive 2 hours or more (100 miles in one direction or another) to get to a show?

I agree that this is not an "all or nothing" issue. Two shows cannot exist if they are held within 25 miles of each other. But that is an extreme example that would not happen unless the old show was unbearably bad or the new show was backed by bottomless pockets and was willing to take huge losses to get established. But, within 100 miles?

And the big players who have locked in so many weeks a year that other show managers are shut out? I used to live on the West coast and 20 years ago, it was getting bad. Now I understand it is even worse.

The issue of buying and selling show dates so as to protect your show is becoming outrageous in several areas. I had no idea until recently that this practice existed to the extent it does.

People should not be allowed to "own" and "sell" show dates. Unless a manager can show good reason why a show is not being held for one year, he should lose the date. And the protection should only last for one year.

Dates should be non-transferable to new management groups, unless the location stays the same. And dates should not be protected if the show moves, unless it stays within a small radius (25 miles?) AND the management group stays the same.

The whole concept of people "owning time" is bizarre. They lease the right to hold a horse show in a certain location. As soon as they do not hold that horse show in that location, the privilege ends.

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 10:29 AM
We could go on and on about all this, but it seems that the real solution is to create a reason that the B and C shows can be attractive to the exhibitor. This is where we should be putting our energies. It works in Zones 1 and 2 for several reasons.
A) Population density
B) Extreme interest in qualifying for the national level medal finals
C) Extreme interest in qualifying for the New England Medal finals
D) Extreme interest in qualifying for Zone 2 Finals, a well run and prestigeous event held at Harrisburg

People do not sell B and C dates. If you want to hold a B or C show in Zone 3 ( which I know is where the OP lives) just start it up.) Make it great, make it something that people want to attend.

It seems to me that if you can't afford to go to the AA shows, then DON"T GO!! The issue is to find a desirable alternative.
Virginia has the VHSA associate program which is a free for all w/ no mileage etc. Many of these shows never fill over half their classes and most bemaon the number of shows running on the same weekend. I am not saying that this program is unsuccessful, but it certainly has its drawbacks. The only shows that seem to make it financialy are those with a location in a very high horse population and those that have many boarders and a large client base that fill all the classes.
I really think that rather than change what is ( which is not likely as you are far from the first one to rally a war cry) to create something new that people want and can afford to attend.

findeight
Nov. 21, 2011, 10:36 AM
I feel like there are always several options within an hour on any given weekend, and those are rated shows. Now all the rage is fancier schooling shows that have popped up in the same area. How many shows do we need?

Pam, I'll give you more then 2 cents worth on this one.

This is part of the problem- what is true in one zone/region is not in another. In zone 5, there are fewer exhibitors overall and they are spread out over alot more area then zones 1 and 2 so no glut of "fancy schooling shows" creating too many shows. Fact there are very few non rated shows offering anything over 2'6" as an alternative to any rated level show at all because the AA rateds now offer all levels. Locals cannot attract enough exhibitors to pay expenses.

Remember that, despite a larger area, there are fewer population centers so any show is going to need to be located near those centers. You can't just pick a point on a map outside that milage limit for a new show...probably not a show horse within 100 miles of alot of that territory.

KHP and Brownland in the neighboring zone 4 (IIRC it's 4) gobble up just about every single week May thru Sept offering everything from GP to 2'. So trainers take the whole barn to the AA instead of splitting the string, no need to send anybody to a local when the same classes are offered (at triple the price) at the AA.

Managers own those dates and can move the location, sell them, buy somebody elses and even cancel it some years and still keep the dates-offering a show only often enough to keep the dates and block anybody else from offering a new rated show.

And NOBODY can offer a nice new exhibitor friendly single A or B show with the behemoth AA mega circuits sitting on every available date protected by that mileage rule. If anybody wants to offer a new non rated, they risk low turnout because most barns are going to the AA.

Vicious circle, unintended I would imagine. But that's where we find ourselves.

It's hurting the business in general by kicking out what used to be the lower and middle levels riders stepped up to the AAs off of. It's also eliminating any lower cost alternative.

S A McKee
Nov. 21, 2011, 11:33 AM
People do not sell B and C dates. If you want to hold a B or C show in Zone 3 ( which I know is where the OP lives) just start it up.) Make it great, make it something that people want to attend.

It seems to me that if you can't afford to go to the AA shows, then DON"T GO!! The issue is to find a desirable alternative.
Virginia has the VHSA associate program which is a free for all w/ no mileage etc. Many of these shows never fill over half their classes and most bemaon the number of shows running on the same weekend. I am not saying that this program is unsuccessful, but it certainly has its drawbacks. The only shows that seem to make it financialy are those with a location in a very high horse population and those that have many boarders and a large client base that fill all the classes.
I really think that rather than change what is ( which is not likely as you are far from the first one to rally a war cry) to create something new that people want and can afford to attend.

Of course C and B show dates get sold.
At least in Zone 2.
I know of at least 10 dates that were sold last year in one very small part of Zone 2.
But again that points out the differences in regions.

I do agree with the rest of what you are saying. VHSA is a good thing.

The thing that may become a factor in all this is the show facility standards that go into effect 12/1.
It is likely that some facilities will not be able to comply with the standards as an AA show and will revert to A or even B status.

Also, there are several rule changes to stop awarding prize money as points in the professional divisions. One reason to stop this practice is the fact that A rated shows can't attract exhibitors to the Professional divisions because many can't come up with 25K or more to run a USHJA Int Hunter Derby.
Instead the pro's go to the mega shows to earn dollars and points and the cycle creates what really amounts to two different leagues within the same system. Mega AA shows and everybody else.LOL

Lucassb
Nov. 21, 2011, 11:46 AM
When the topic of the mileage rule comes up - as it seems to do on a regular basis - there are always a lot of posts about how date protection allows "bad" shows to persist, and the elimination of the mileage rule is proposed to allow "good" shows to spring up and replace them.

Of course, it's nowhere near that simple, for all of the legitimate reasons already noted. And I agree with those that suggest there may be a whole host of unintended negative consequences if the rule is repealed.

But I don't think that the elimination of the mileage rule is the *only* or even necessarily the best way to improve the quality of shows. Putting more teeth into the show evaluation process might be a better way - think what would happen to the mega shows if there was a substantial enough penalty for poor ratings from their exhibitor community.

Of course, that would require the active participation of those exhibitors. (From what I understand, not many people send in evaluations.) But let's say you could get evals from 80% of the exhibitors at any given show, and each year, show managers had to re-apply for their dates... in descending order of their "exhibitor satisfaction scores." Highest rated show gets to pick first, then the second highest rated, etc.

Bet those show offices would have a VERY different attitude toward their customers... :lol:

Isabeau Z Solace
Nov. 21, 2011, 11:51 AM
I feel like there are always several options within an hour on any given weekend, and those are rated shows. Now all the rage is fancier schooling shows that have popped up in the same area. How many shows do we need?

The good schooling shows are there because the rated shows have so many down sides. Sratch fees, drug test fees, obnoxious memberships and fees galore !!

Those 'fancier' schooling shows are thriving because they offer what people want, without a lot of what they don't (basically, they don't funnel $$ to the USEF in exchange for bupkiss, and they aren't hampered by bucket loads of USEF rules, requirements, and 'penalties' if the show organizers get your membership numbers wrong:(.

The USEF is losing members, $, and morale because they are a pain in the butt, and don't provide a lot of anything that a lot of the 'average' smurfs, little fish, etc want or need.

So they can keep the 'mileage rule' if they wish. It will only continue to drive more competitors/customers to the schooling shows.

findeight
Nov. 21, 2011, 12:04 PM
And, again, much of the USA is not like New Jersey or Virginia with multiple population centers close to each other, multiple facilities available for show organizers to give the large number of exhibitors multiple options.

But I agree the mileage rule is not the only problem. And it always seems to me having show managers sitting on both national and local level boards that approve and oversee shows??? Represents a substantial conflict of interest. Kind of hard to evaluate shows when the board that reviews the evaluations often has show managers participating.

In any other industry, that would be nuts.

vxf111
Nov. 21, 2011, 12:20 PM
When the topic of the mileage rule comes up - as it seems to do on a regular basis - there are always a lot of posts about how date protection allows "bad" shows to persist, and the elimination of the mileage rule is proposed to allow "good" shows to spring up and replace them.

Of course, it's nowhere near that simple, for all of the legitimate reasons already noted. And I agree with those that suggest there may be a whole host of unintended negative consequences if the rule is repealed.

But I don't think that the elimination of the mileage rule is the *only* or even necessarily the best way to improve the quality of shows. Putting more teeth into the show evaluation process might be a better way - think what would happen to the mega shows if there was a substantial enough penalty for poor ratings from their exhibitor community.

Of course, that would require the active participation of those exhibitors. (From what I understand, not many people send in evaluations.) But let's say you could get evals from 80% of the exhibitors at any given show, and each year, show managers had to re-apply for their dates... in descending order of their "exhibitor satisfaction scores." Highest rated show gets to pick first, then the second highest rated, etc.

Bet those show offices would have a VERY different attitude toward their customers... :lol:

This x100. There ought to be a way to weed out "bad" shows but it shouldn't be based on whose is in whose backyard and who has the dates they've been clinging to since antiquity!

vxf111
Nov. 21, 2011, 12:22 PM
And, again, much of the USA is not like New Jersey or Virginia with multiple population centers close to each other, multiple facilities available for show organizers to give the large number of exhibitors multiple options.

In places were there aren't multiple venues in close proximity, how does the mileage rule matter at all? If there's no one else wanting to have a show within X miles of you, the mileage rule never comes into play, right?

So says someone who spent this weekend in Salt Lake City, Utah. And entire STATE without ANY USEF rated shows. When my feet hit PA soil, I all but wept ;) Those of us who live in the hotbed are so, so, so lucky.

BUT we're the ones who have shows blocked out by the mileage rule. Sparse areas shouldn't really be affected either way!?

findeight
Nov. 21, 2011, 01:21 PM
Forget Utah...I am talking places like Cincy and Louisville that cannot host any smaller rateds because the KHP, although a good distance away, is too close. Fact the KHP hosts dates previously held for years in Cincy, they moved them rather then surrender the dates-that's 2 weeks, prime mid summer show season- to a manager willing to find another venue in the immediate area.

Linny
Nov. 21, 2011, 01:25 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but does the Mileage Rule apply to all rated shows or just shows of the same rating?

Like many other endeavors, the movers and shakers are the biggest names in the sport but in most cases they are so far removed from the rank and file trainers and competitors that they have entirely differing interests that largely conflict with the typical show rider.

findeight
Nov. 21, 2011, 01:30 PM
No USEF rated shows within that mileage limit on the same date(s) offering the same divisions. You can have a breed restricted show, like Arab or Morgan-not an Open H/J show.

vxf111
Nov. 21, 2011, 01:49 PM
Forget Utah

Trust me, I'm trying to!

vxf111
Nov. 21, 2011, 01:50 PM
Forget Utah...I am talking places like Cincy and Louisville that cannot host any smaller rateds because the KHP, although a good distance away, is too close. Fact the KHP hosts dates previously held for years in Cincy, they moved them rather then surrender the dates-that's 2 weeks, prime mid summer show season- to a manager willing to find another venue in the immediate area.

You're preaching to the choir! I agree, the rule ends up hurting competitors and benefiting those who early-on grabbed dates- regardless of competitor desire/show quality.

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 01:53 PM
Perhaps a somewhat simple solution would be to lower the mileage restrictions for B and C shows in relation to AA/A shows. For the most part we are dealing with entirely different barns and clientele. ( yes I know there are exceptions within regions) but we can't necessarily legislate for Montana, that needs to be taken care of within the zones. Perhaps it is the zone committees that should decide on their own mileage rules.
Using the mileage rule for Zone 5 ( Cincinnatti, as used previously) the mileage to run during Kentuck as a C rated show is 50 miles. I would venture by looking at mapquest that most of the Cincinnatti area is at least that far.

For the record, to my knowledge VA does not have one B or C rated show. Maryland has a few. Haven't checked NC, but I don't think there are many there either.
Another factor that truly needs to be changed is how the USEF determines mileage. They draw a straight line between two points and use that mileage as opposed to road miles. Getting that change would eliminate some problems right there. I checked into a situation that the uSEF said that the mileage between two points was 60 miles less than Mapquest.
The other thing is that any show manager can grant permission for a show to run the same time as theirs. Perhaps not many will, but you do not know until you try. Often times we are only talking about one day of conflict, not a whole week.

Another idea for summer dates is to run shows during the week rather than thinking only of the weekend dates as viable. We have several very successful shows in VA that run only on Tues, Weds, etc. They are very well attended.
Just a few more thoughts...

S A McKee
Nov. 21, 2011, 01:55 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but does the Mileage Rule apply to all rated shows or just shows of the same rating?

Like many other endeavors, the movers and shakers are the biggest names in the sport but in most cases they are so far removed from the rank and file trainers and competitors that they have entirely differing interests that largely conflict with the typical show rider.

In H/J land the mileage charts are specific to zones.
And they get broken out by discipline ( Hunter or Jumper)
And in Florida there is a different set of rules for the first trimester of the year due to WEF and other AA rated shows.

The rating of the show also comes into play.
In Z 1- 2 c Rated shows have to be 50 miles apart on the same dates but A and AA rated shows need to be 125 miles apart.

In Z 3-12 A and AA rated shows need to be 250 miles apart.

And the mileage rule impacts disciplines outside of H/J.

And to make it even more confusing two shows can get together and make a deal and one show can give the other an exemption to operate closer than the mileage rules allow.
USEF General rules GR308.

S A McKee
Nov. 21, 2011, 02:02 PM
[QUOTE=chunky munky;5972870
Another factor that truly needs to be changed is how the USEF determines mileage. They draw a straight line between two points and use that mileage as opposed to road miles. Getting that change would eliminate some problems right there. I checked into a situation that the uSEF said that the mileage between two points was 60 miles less than Mapquest..[/QUOTE]

1. Mileage application provisions
a. To determine a mile radius, the distance shall be measured using a map drawn to scale by AAA, Rand McNally, or the USGS, or by using USGS based software, to measure the distance between the locations where the competitions are being conducted. (i.e. address of the facility where each of the competitions will be held or the longitude and latitude if an exact address does not exist.) (except between Long Island and the mainland). Application of this process will
not adversely affect the license rights of competitions already licensed.
b. In any instance where road mileage between the competition facility locations is greater than one and one half (1 1/2) times the radial mileage between the competition facility locations, the required mile distances between competitions shall be based upon the road mileage
rather than radial mileage.
c. Mileage between competitions with different mileage requirements will be subjected to the lower of the mileage distances..

I've bolded the part about radial and road mileage

Lord Helpus
Nov. 21, 2011, 02:15 PM
OK, now we have heard a number of reasons why eliminating the mileage rule will not help what ails us.

How about turning the question upside down and asking:

What/who does the mileage rule help? And why do these peole/entities need a rule to help them when/if the free enterprise system will take care of competition anyway?

Why even have a mileage rule? I am not so sure I understand these "unintended consequences" that a free market would bring.

If a new show is not viable up against an established show, then it will fail. Pure and simple.

But I totally agree with the Attorney from page one who has spent years learning about monoplies: It is not the existence of competition that improves a show, it is the fear of competition that causes management to look seriously at their show and improve it so it is the best it can be.

I am open to understanding why the mileage rule is a necessary part of the rule book.

(Re: show approval forms to rate shows -- I disagree that is a valid measurement of how a show is doing because it only counts the people who are already at the show. It leaves out all the people who could not/did not attend for whatever reason -- the show was too far away, too expensive, the footing was not good enough, class schedule was not what they wanted/needed, etc. THOSE are the people who need to be counted, not the people who actually attend the show.)

2bayboys
Nov. 21, 2011, 02:31 PM
Chunky brought up VHSA Associate shows and it's true that there are always multiple shows going on every weekend. I've personally never had a problem with my divisions filling, and the multiple choice option allows me to choose which show might have the best schedule for me, or better footing, or nicer prizes, or the best catering truck. Choice is good, the mileage rule kills the customer's ability to affect positive change through competition.

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 02:55 PM
I strongly disagree that shows disappear because they are bad shows. In today's market it is almost impossible to run a small AA show against a larger one. Both must offer the same prize $ ( 25K for AA hunters, at least 10K for a derby). In this day and age you need to offer a Derby to attract pro entries now that prize $ is the deciding factor for qualifying and winning year end awards.

So the show that can accomodate 1500 horses and runs eight+ arenas will bring in more revenue to suppost those expenses. The lovely small two ring show that we all grew up with cannot exist as a AA show without extreme sponsorship funding. Incase nobody has noticed, sponsor $ is hard to come by in this economy. And worse still is the small show is competing for those dollars with the big horse show groups that give one sponsor fee that gets the sponsor seven shows, where their exposure is a much easier sell than at the country horse show. Those large groups also have a fulltime staff paid to rustle up sponsors. It is a sad fact. that it makes it very tough on the little guy.
The only small shows that are able to survive as AA's these days are the ones that have run for 25+ years and have strong traditional private funding,( or an "angel") and large groups of volunteer labor. Basically these shows do not run as a profitable venture.
Many people invest a lot of $ in the facilities they use. As you have seen many shows are putting in the great European footing that people love, more schooling areas, upgrading in general. One needs somewhat a sense of security to invest that way. To know that you could easily have another show pop up 10 miles away is somewhat disconcerting.
I truly think that you would not see many smaller A/AA shows pop up on the scene even without a mileage rule. There are not enough people seeking them to make people go through the time and expense of running them. But I assure you that the big guys would just add more dates to theirt already large roster. The mileage rule at this point is more of a protection of the little guy than any one else.
I still say find a way to make the B and C shows attractive to exhibitors because outside of Zones 1 and 2 they are not.

I

vxf111
Nov. 21, 2011, 02:55 PM
(Re: show approval forms to rate shows -- I disagree that is a valid measurement of how a show is doing because it only counts the people who are already at the show. It leaves out all the people who could not/did not attend for whatever reason -- the show was too far away, too expensive, the footing was not good enough, class schedule was not what they wanted/needed, etc. THOSE are the people who need to be counted, not the people who actually attend the show.)

I agree with you that basically we need feedback from all affected USEF members but I think that could still be accomplished via surverys/feedback. IF these people are USEF members, I think there could/should be a way to add their input to survey information from those who attended?

Maybe USEF sends you two questionnaires quarterly-- one listing all the shows you went to, and you rate them in various categories. The second listing all the shows within the zone that you did not go to, and you can provide feedback where appropriate as to why? This could all be computerized, and it could self-fill in to save time (if I, for example, declare that Heritage Farm is in my zone but I choose not to travel that far to show, it would populate that info under each HF show).

I, for one, wouldn't mind periodically providing that kind of input if I thought it was taken seriously and used to improve shows.

Linny
Nov. 21, 2011, 02:58 PM
Thank you for the clarification on the rule. I'm no longer a USEF member as I don't have a horse to show.

There is a great divide between areas with lots of alternatives and those with very few. People in much of the mid-Atlantic, from New Jersey on down to So. Carolina often have plenty of horsey choices as do those in horsey enclaves in New England or even parts of California and Illinois or Florida. If you have a strong local association (as it appears most of Virginia does) there is a good chance you'll have solid unrated or local shows as alternatives to corporate shows. If not, you have the mileage rule restricting when smaller outfits that want to host good shows and get rated may do so. I'm wedged in between Manchester and Saugerties (geographically) and yet am in an area with very few really good local alternatives.

Clearly the big corporate shows are benefitted through the protection of the rule. My gues is that Tom S or his like has far more influence that the collective influence of the little people who write al those checks out to HITS every year.

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 03:01 PM
Chunky brought up VHSA Associate shows and it's true that there are always multiple shows going on every weekend. I've personally never had a problem with my divisions filling, and the multiple choice option allows me to choose which show might have the best schedule for me, or better footing, or nicer prizes, or the best catering truck. Choice is good, the mileage rule kills the customer's ability to affect positive change through competition.

I have to disagree here. I judge many of these shows. Many had extremely low entries in 2011 and often I went away feeling that management most likely lost their shirt, and not because they ran a bad show. The ones that have a great geographic location do fine, the others do not unless they are just running the shows to keep their own clientele happy, There were also a great many show cancellations at the associate level this year. In general people have told me their entries are down at those shows in general.

HoofaSchmigetty
Nov. 21, 2011, 03:04 PM
Can someone please explain to me how people can come here to complain about not being able to buy gas to get to a show or poor broke college kids or the rediculous amount of money it costs to attend a quality show?

WHY and HOW do you folks own horses? If things are THAT tough, perhaps a kitten would be a better choice.

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 03:11 PM
Again, I would love to know what shows that are running successfully that need major fixing? All I've heard is you want lower prices. That will not happen at an AA rated show, for financial considerations that I have mentioned previously. Any questionaire rating system will have zero effect on what you are aiming at.
The fact is that at this point Mr. Struzzeri most likely couldn't care less if someone were to run a C rated show in Albany. He runs a good show and gives the best prize $ in the USA. They will still go to HITS. And yes the entry fees etc will be higher there than in Podunk junction, but so are the rewards and facilities better than most can provide.

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 03:15 PM
Agree w/ Hoofa. There seems to be a highly evolved sense of entitlement with some of these folks thinking that costs of showing at the AA rated show should be low enough so that they may attend. There are other shows for that crowd, and if there are not, create them. If they are actually wanted by the masses they will succeed.

vxf111
Nov. 21, 2011, 03:19 PM
For me, at least, it has nothing to do with money. It has to do with venue. I want the opportunity to go to a rated show sometime between July and March, held at a venue other than the 3 with a majority of the dates. Of those 3 main date-holding entitites, 2 of their venues have tiny crappy rings, crummy warmup areas, and iffy footing. Meanwhile, 2 lovely venues sit vacant because there aren't any dates left for them to be used and no one else is going to step up and run a schooling show that competes with a rated show. If there was no mileage rule, I suspect someone would try a competing rated show and might get a foothold given the huge disparity in venue. I'm not expecting lower prices, I just want some choice as to where I spend the money.

S A McKee
Nov. 21, 2011, 03:22 PM
I strongly disagree that shows disappear because they are bad shows. In today's market it is almost impossible to run a small AA show against a larger one. Both must offer the same prize $ ( 25K for AA hunters, at least 10K for a derby). In this day and age you need to offer a Derby to attract pro entries now that prize $ is the deciding factor for qualifying and winning year end awards.



Maybe not. I touched on this in an earlier post.
There are two proposals to stop the madness with prize money equals points.
And one is coming from USHJA.They are both very similar.
Here's the USHJA version.

change 215-11
"To alleviate the hardship of competitions which cannot offer sufficiently increased prize money to attract enough clients to be sustainable due to economic, geographic and horse concentration factors. The current rule is resulting in the disappearance of competitions reducing exhibitors’
ability to participate in the sport in a manner which suits their economic and recreational capabilities"

Sunset Ponies
Nov. 21, 2011, 03:22 PM
Chunky brought up VHSA Associate shows and it's true that there are always multiple shows going on every weekend. I've personally never had a problem with my divisions filling, and the multiple choice option allows me to choose which show might have the best schedule for me, or better footing, or nicer prizes, or the best catering truck. Choice is good, the mileage rule kills the customer's ability to affect positive change through competition.

This is exactly what I was thinking. I have just been picking my associate show series for next year, and having the choice is nice.

Although there are a lot of shows on the same weekend, I definitely have seen people having options put a lesser quality show out of business. There are a lot of options available to us on the Associate circuit, but not as many as there were a couple of years ago. The economy is part of that, but competition is also part of it.

That being said, I'm not sure that comparing the two (the local show series vs. rated) is a completely accurate way to judge the current systems. It isn't apples and oranges, more like oranges and tangerines. There are different costs, different clients and different goals. Associate horse shows are usually a series of shows throughout the year and loyalty to a show series can pay off in a way that it just won't at the big shows unless you are a BNT.

Bottom line is this isn't a black and white issue. The protection of the mileage rule for show owners and managers was put in place for a valid reason, but it is a system that could definitely use a little tweaking. As costs rise for exhibitors and the economy continues to flounder, shows are going to need to reconsider their quality and accessibility anyway or risk loosing clients to nice schooling shows.

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 03:24 PM
Curious vx, what venues are sitting empty?? ( appears that you are in Phil. area)

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 03:32 PM
Maybe not. I touched on this in an earlier post.
change 215-11
"To alleviate the hardship of competitions which cannot offer sufficiently increased prize money to attract enough clients to be sustainable due to economic, geographic and horse concentration factors. The current rule is resulting in the disappearance of competitions reducing exhibitors’
ability to participate in the sport in a manner which suits their economic and recreational capabilities"

SA, does it say who put up this proposal? ( person, committee, etc?) Having been at the convention last year I never heard any of this discussion. Maybe I missed it. Also where did you copy this proposal from? TIA

vxf111
Nov. 21, 2011, 03:40 PM
Curious vx, what venues are sitting empty?? ( appears that you are in Phil. area)

If you want to show over the late fall/winter/early spring-- pretty much the only rated games in town (unless you want to hike quite far to Swannie or Heritage Acres or Princeton) are Our Farm, Duncraven, and Ashley Meadows. Two of the three have very small indoors and very limited schooling space.

IMHO there are venues that I would strongly prefer. I'd much rather be in the HUGE indoor at the NJ Dream Park. Or NJ Horse Park. Or Briarwood. Or even Wyndsor. Or Bucks Co. Horse Park. Or, heck, RADNOR or Vince Dugan's (maybe not for the dead of winter shows, but the ones in the late fall/early spring). The Dream Park, in particular, is pretty darn new and has a lot going for it-- but given that all the dates are snatched up-- it's never going to have rated shows all winter long. Basically, the biggest and newst venue sits vacant all winter long (or hosts dog agility or aplaca shows) while we go around like mice in a wheel inside a tiny dumpy indoor BECAUSE he (or she) who has the dates, has the show.

Bob Allen is doing an unrated series at the Dream Park/NJHP this winter. I've basically decided not to show rated this winter and do schooling shows just because I'd much rather be at that venue. The divisions are better for me at rated shows, but I just can't justify dragging myself to a worse venue to pay more when there's an unrated show at what I percieve to be the better venue (run by folks I like better too!)

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 03:53 PM
Well, there ya go. An exhibitor that is choosing to go to an unrated show due to better venue. Using ones feet to vote.
The shows you mentioned are all run at licensee owned venues. My guess is that the numbers they get in the dead of winter would make it difficult to run where they have to pay a lease fee. Will be interesting to see how Bob does there.I hope it works out well.
Unfortunately, winter shows are tough up north with the small schooling areas. Partly just the nature of the beast.

vxf111
Nov. 21, 2011, 04:00 PM
Well, there ya go. An exhibitor that is choosing to go to an unrated show due to better venue. Using ones feet to vote.
The shows you mentioned are all run at licensee owned venues. My guess is that the numbers they get in the dead of winter would make it difficult to run where they have to pay a lease fee. Will be interesting to see how Bob does there.I hope it works out well.
Unfortunately, winter shows are tough up north with the small schooling areas. Partly just the nature of the beast.

Not all of the alternatives I mentioned are publicly owned. Briarwood isn't. Wyndsor isn't.

I don't know how much the Dream Park (or other venues) cost to rent because I've never done it, but I doubt that's the reason there aren't any rated shows there all winter. It's because the three people who grabbed up all the dates have the only game in town and would rather just use those dates to run shows at their own place. Which they can, because of the mileage rule. Cost to rent a facility obviously builds into the cost of the show-- but the reason no one can strike out and compete isn't the rental costs, it's the mileage rule.

Lack of schooling areas, small rings, and crummy footing doesn't have to be "the nature of the beast" when there are better venues sitting vacant. It would be different if we had no other venues around here. We have a whole bunch. They just aren't being used. The "nature of the beast" flows directly from the lack of competition. A handful of people have all the dates, and so, for better of for worse-- if they feed us slop, that's what we have to eat unless we decide to drive very far or go unrated. I, for one, am not a fan of that system. If rental costs are the difference, abolish the mileage rule and let someone run a competing show at the Dream Park the same weekend as Ashley Meadows. Maybe the DP show will cost a little more to cover the rental fees, but maybe people would RATHER pay a little more and get a little more. Give the buyer a choice in where they go. The better shows will prevail because they'll have to earn business.

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 04:12 PM
I am familiar with all those facilities, but haven't been to Dream Park yet. Most of those shows have been running for MANY years. You may find that some of those managers would be willing to run their shows there if they could get a good lease rate and exhibitors convinced them they would be supportive of the move with sponsorship and bringing more entries. Just a thought. Several of those folks run shows in venues ither than their own, so it is not that far a stretch.

KnKShowmom
Nov. 21, 2011, 04:17 PM
Chunky brought up VHSA Associate shows and it's true that there are always multiple shows going on every weekend. I've personally never had a problem with my divisions filling, and the multiple choice option allows me to choose which show might have the best schedule for me, or better footing, or nicer prizes, or the best catering truck. Choice is good, the mileage rule kills the customer's ability to affect positive change through competition.

This past summer we drove to NoVa and spent the night so we could attend a VHSA assoc. show - DD still needed a few pts for the medal and we were running out of time. Class ran first thing in the morning, 3 people entered, one refused out so no points. Stopped at another show 1 hr away (on the way home) to try to catch the same class and ended up doing another division (working hunter with our little jumper/eq guy :lol:)to help fill it so someone would do the same for ours.

Seems there were two other shows in the same area that day which resulted in minimal numbers in the classes. I asked someone about a mileage rule and they said VHSA didn't have one.

Our regular local association has a mileage rule and for the most part the shows are well attended and the classes fill and count - the concensus among the VHSA people we talked to was that they would like to see the same thing for them.

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 04:27 PM
Right. The mileage rule also protects the exhibitor from scenarios you experienced. Most of those shows do not have pre entries available early so it is hard to tell what is filled.As I mentioned, that was my experience with a number of the associate shows this year. I suspect that there are factions that think it is fine just the way it is and I believe that the Assoc. itself likes it as it is. There are certainly pros and cons and again its not just black and white w/ the mileage regulations.

Lord Helpus
Nov. 21, 2011, 04:36 PM
VXF111,

Your situation sounds like the perfect example of why the mileage rule is deleterious to horse showing and to the exhibitor who wants to show at the facility with the best ring and the safest footing.

I am having trouble understanding why CM can't agree with you.

If the current managers have not moved into better facilities (and you have mentioned several), then "ya snooze, ya lose" should be the rule.

Why should exhibitors be forced into choosing between an inferior facility or an unrated show, just so the old guard who have control of the dates, can stay in business, even if they are not availing themselves of the chance to put on the best possible shows?

CM, I still have not heard you (or other proponents of the mileage rule) come forth with a comprehensive argument for keeping the mileage rule.

Truly, how do the benefits outweigh the detriments?

(And, I do not believe that telling people they can go to an unrated show if they do not like the AA show is a viable alternative. Would you do that? )

At this point in time, would you even run an unrated show? I went to 2 this past summer because I wanted to support local shows. The show was finished by noon every day. Over 2/3rds of the classes had no entries. I was embarassed for my area -- to not come out and support a good show. I would guess that this management group (RMI) will not be back next year.

I am not a show manager, nor a judge. I am an ammie who wants quality shows to go to

Eye in the Sky
Nov. 21, 2011, 04:57 PM
I know that the color of show coats and deciding on a show name for your horse are important stuff, but unless there are quality, afforable shows within a reasonable distance to go to, the rest won't matter.

My opinion:

The mileage rule protects show managers. It does not help, and it actually hurts, the exhibitor. Due to the makeup of the various boards on the USHJA, show managers, and those sympathetic to them (for whatever reason -- use your imagination here) have had the clout to block any movements to do away with the rule.

Jump Canada has just drastically limited their Mileage Rule; show managers may "protect" two weeks in one year -- and thats it. (I think I've got that right...)

That sounds fair to me. I would even feel comfortable in maintaining the Mileage Rule for Heritage shows (Devon, Upperville etc.) Those shows need to be preserved because they are a link to the past and highlight what is so special about our sport.

But, as for the rest? -- It should be gone. Whatever need it was supposed to fulfill when it was instituted no longer exists. It allows managers to put on mediocre shows charging incredible fees and prices because they do not have any competition. It also forces us to drive hours farther than we should have to -- and with the cost of gas, that is unacceptable.

With Annual Meetings coming up soon, we need to have our voices heard. No longer should we be the huddled [voiceless] masses. Bitching to each other doesn't change anything. We need to tell TPTB that the MIleage Rule is totally unacceptable and needs to be repealed effective immediately.

Anyone else want to add their $.02?

I know it's a long quote, but I wanted to preserve it for posterity because it was just so.damn.good.

I'd love to see this in place. Exactly. Period.:D

Eye in the Sky
Nov. 21, 2011, 05:13 PM
Agree w/ Hoofa. There seems to be a highly evolved sense of entitlement with some of these folks thinking that costs of showing at the AA rated show should be low enough so that they may attend. There are other shows for that crowd, and if there are not, create them. If they are actually wanted by the masses they will succeed.

Is it entitlement, or frustration you are reading? I know for me, I'm frustrated. I would prefer shows to have to be good enough to attend - not just the only thing going that weekend because of a rule I disagree with.

I went to your "dominion horse show" website, and I think I understand a bit more about the stance you are taking here - it sounds like you did all you could to make the show "good" but like you stated, the economy and the heat were likely just too much for folks. I am sorry you worked so hard and still lost some barns. Maybe when the economy bounces back, so will your show - and if it's as nice as it sounds, my guess is, milage rule or not, people would come. :yes:

Jumphigh83
Nov. 21, 2011, 05:14 PM
What LordHelpUs said...SO WELL!

S A McKee
Nov. 21, 2011, 05:39 PM
SA, does it say who put up this proposal? ( person, committee, etc?) Having been at the convention last year I never heard any of this discussion. Maybe I missed it. Also where did you copy this proposal from? TIA

The one I quoted was proposed by USHJA
http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/215-11.pdf

There is a very similar one proposed by Gary Baker
http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/098-11.pdf

Both of these are on the USHJA site under currently active rule changes
http://www.ushja.org/content/rules/prc.aspx

MHM
Nov. 21, 2011, 05:40 PM
If rental costs are the difference, abolish the mileage rule and let someone run a competing show at the Dream Park the same weekend as Ashley Meadows.

Tangent: Are there still shows at Ashley Meadows? I thought she stopped running shows a year or two ago?

The dates still appear on a USEF search, but her website does not seem to exist now.

MyssMyst
Nov. 21, 2011, 05:41 PM
When the topic of the mileage rule comes up - as it seems to do on a regular basis - there are always a lot of posts about how date protection allows "bad" shows to persist, and the elimination of the mileage rule is proposed to allow "good" shows to spring up and replace them.

Of course, it's nowhere near that simple, for all of the legitimate reasons already noted. And I agree with those that suggest there may be a whole host of unintended negative consequences if the rule is repealed.

But I don't think that the elimination of the mileage rule is the *only* or even necessarily the best way to improve the quality of shows. Putting more teeth into the show evaluation process might be a better way - think what would happen to the mega shows if there was a substantial enough penalty for poor ratings from their exhibitor community.

Of course, that would require the active participation of those exhibitors. (From what I understand, not many people send in evaluations.) But let's say you could get evals from 80% of the exhibitors at any given show, and each year, show managers had to re-apply for their dates... in descending order of their "exhibitor satisfaction scores." Highest rated show gets to pick first, then the second highest rated, etc.

Bet those show offices would have a VERY different attitude toward their customers... :lol:

I seriously love this idea :D

S A McKee
Nov. 21, 2011, 06:00 PM
VXF111,

If the current managers have not moved into better facilities (and you have mentioned several), then "ya snooze, ya lose" should be the rule.

Why should exhibitors be forced into choosing between an inferior facility or an unrated show, just so the old guard who have control of the dates, can stay in business, even if they are not availing themselves of the chance to put on the best possible shows?



Yeah but that IS THE RULE.

Starting 12/1 all shows have to meet a set of standards that cover the size of the rings, the size and availability of exercise areas, longing areas, rain and sun shelter for horses and humans, equestrian vendors, on line entries, dust reduction, bath room facilities etc etc.

There is some flexibilty built into the new system for the next few years but if you don't meet the standards you need to downgrade to a lower rating.

USHJA has put together a very good chart of all the stuff that has to be done at each rating level.
http://www.ushja.org/images/show_standards_LR.pdf
http://www.ushja.org/documents/rules/2011HJCompStandards.pdf

Every show has to file a form describing their facility in terms of the new requirements by the end of the month.

http://www.usef.org/documents/competitions/HJRequirementsandStandards.pdf

If you think the facility you are showing at doesn't meet the standards simply fill out a show evaluation form.

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 06:47 PM
VXF111,

Your situation sounds like the perfect example of why the mileage rule is deleterious to horse showing and to the exhibitor who wants to show at the facility with the best ring and the safest footing.

Lets also point out that Dream Park is a very new facility. Perhaps some of these managers may be considering moving their shows there. There are many considerations to running an A rated show in NJ in January, one includes snow removal, parking etc. It is possible that the expenses to move exceed good business sense. Horse shows unfortunately are not run as a charity for exhibitors.

I am having trouble understanding why CM can't agree with you.
If you read all my posts yopu will find that I do not agree with the mileage rule as it exists currently. I have also mentioned some tweaking ideas that may be of value. But to put the whole system into a free for all (like VHSA assoc program) is not the answer or you will end up with a bunch of shows with classes that don't fill and managment that will lose so much money that they won't bother to run shows anymore.

If the current managers have not moved into better facilities (and you have mentioned several), then "ya snooze, ya lose" should be the rule.

That is a very simplistic way of looking at the problem. You are dealing with peoples livelyhoods and families. Can you tell me what the possible incentive is to run a horse show and lose money?? Step right up folks.

Why should exhibitors be forced into choosing between an inferior facility or an unrated show, just so the old guard who have control of the dates, can stay in business, even if they are not availing themselves of the chance to put on the best possible shows?

I think that most are trying to give the best possible show product within the confines of the facility that they own.

CM, I still have not heard you (or other proponents of the mileage rule) come forth with a comprehensive argument for keeping the mileage rule.

Again, Lordy, I have not because i believe it needs to be reworked, as I have now stated 3 times. Please take note.

Truly, how do the benefits outweigh the detriments?

Several have posted about classes not filling. Also that running A shows up north in the winter with under 150 horses cannot necessarily afford to move into expensive facilities.

(And, I do not believe that telling people they can go to an unrated show if they do not like the AA show is a viable alternative. Would you do that? )
No as I have said earlier, those of you that do not like the expenses of the AA show or the shows in your area to find a way to make the B and C shows viable, or start a good unrated circuit. There are some.

At this point in time, would you even run an unrated show? I went to 2 this past summer because I wanted to support local shows. The show was finished by noon every day. Over 2/3rds of the classes had no entries. I was embarassed for my area -- to not come out and support a good show. I would guess that this management group (RMI) will not be back next year.

There are some excellent unrated shows in VA and some that I know of in PA and FL. It is much less expensive to run an unrated show and that saving can be passed on to the exhibitor.

I am not a show manager, nor a judge. I am an ammie who wants quality shows to go to

Perhaps time to put your money where your mouth is and start something in your area.

Lord Helpus
Nov. 21, 2011, 06:47 PM
All well and good, but the existing show still has the dates and can continue to prevent managers who want to provide BETTER facilities from putting on a recognized show.

And management of the current shows have FIVE years to get waivers for ring size etc. There is nothing concrete in the rules (and, I acknowledge that it would be all but impossible to put something concrete in there) about footing and safety. However, safe and good footing is like pornography -- you know it when you see it.

These rules set MINIMUM standards for shows. Even if a show is forced to downgrade, it still has protection, just not quite as far. So these rules do not address the mileage issue at all.

PLEASE, can someone tell me why the mileage rule is necessary? I now understand why Chunky Monkey's stance was so intransigent; she manages the Old Dominion Horse Show and it did not do very well last year. This is the kind of show which might be in trouble if the mileage rule were abolished.

OK. Other than people with a vested interest in keeping the mileage rule, is there anyone out there with a good argument for not deleting it from the rule book?

Anyone? Believe it or not, if an argument can be made for the mileage rule, I really am interested in hearing it. So far, all I have heard are reasons why we have other options to let TPTB know we are dissatisfied.

Without the mileage rule, we wouldn't need these other options. We could vote with our feet (or our horse trailers);)

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 07:01 PM
The mileage rule has nothingto do with my horse show not being run last year. The shows that took our entries were shows with Grand Prix classes in Vermont and KY. None in Zone 3.
Looks like Lordy will continue to ignore the not enough exhibitors to fill classes part, and the business end of shows losing money because they have to give huge amounts of prize money and too few entries to supply that prize $.
I think those are pretty good reasons.
It appears to me that there are dates in your area Lordy that you could run a C or maybe even a B show. Particularly if the mileage for B and C's gets tweaked a bit.
I just don't know why you think if a well run unrecognized show ( as you described) didn't fill that a AA show on the same date would...??????

S A McKee
Nov. 21, 2011, 07:24 PM
All well and good, but the existing show still has the dates and can continue to prevent managers who want to provide BETTER facilities from putting on a recognized show.

And management of the current shows have FIVE years to get waivers for ring size etc. There is nothing concrete in the rules (and, I acknowledge that it would be all but impossible to put something concrete in there) about footing and safety. However, safe and good footing is like pornography -- you know it when you see it.

These rules set MINIMUM standards for shows. Even if a show is forced to downgrade, it still has protection, just not quite as far. So these rules do not address the mileage issue at all.

PLEASE, can someone tell me why the mileage rule is necessary? I now understand why Chunky Monkey's stance was so intransigent; she manages the Old Dominion Horse Show and it did not do very well last year. This is the kind of show which might be in trouble if the mileage rule were abolished.

OK. Other than people with a vested interest in keeping the mileage rule, is there anyone out there with a good argument for not deleting it from the rule book?

Anyone? Believe it or not, if an argument can be made for the mileage rule, I really am interested in hearing it. So far, all I have heard are reasons why we have other options to let TPTB know we are dissatisfied.

Without the mileage rule, we wouldn't need these other options. We could vote with our feet (or our horse trailers);)

I think your argument has to be thought all the way through.

- The waivers are only for 5% on the size of the rings. The other standards have to be met.

- If a show has to downgrade then the mileage rule is impacted because if a show is now a B instead of an A the mileage requirements are reduced. Isn't that one of the complaints? Too far to travel?

- There are indeed safety items in the new rules. Separation of auto, foot and horse traffic. Sun and rain shelters for humans and equines. In the options there are items for equine and human ambulances. The bigger the rating the more services the show has to provide.
As a by product the more services required the more the show will charge in fees.

- There are show dates listed as available each month on the USEF website. If you want to run a better show wait till a date is available in your area and then go for it. Start your own show. And then don't cry that all that equipment you need to buy cost a lot of $$ and you can't make a go of it unless you spread the costs out over a series of shows.

- Much as I dislike USHJA it appears they ARE addressing some of the issues such as the prize money equals points mess. These types of changes will help the smaller A show stay in business because it once again is worth it for the points driven folks to attend.

- The argument for not getting rid of it is simply that the law of unintended consequences usually trumps the best laid plans. That's not to say that a phased approach wouldn't be worthwhile.

Reduce the distances for protection. This would allow some additional shows to start up but not allow 15 shows on the same weekend within 50 miles. Nobody wins in that scenario.
If there are only 200 horses available as entries in a given area and you all of a sudden have 10 or even 5 shows instead of the one that holds the date currently then ALL the shows will fail and the next thing you'll be crying about is there are NO shows in your area.

Provide more support to C and B shows, Get rid of the mentality that bigger is better. But be prepared to live without a jumbotron or an electronic scoreboard. If you want more startup shows don't expect them all to look like WEF.

At each phased increment in rule change re-evaluate what the impact was. Look at what unpleasant situations developed, look at the benefts and move forward. Just dropping mileage all at once invites disaster.

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 07:47 PM
Right on, sista SA ;-)

vxf111
Nov. 21, 2011, 09:24 PM
Tangent: Are there still shows at Ashley Meadows? I thought she stopped running shows a year or two ago?

The dates still appear on a USEF search, but her website does not seem to exist now.

Who knows who is running them, but there are three on the USEF calendar for this winter. I thought Dolores moved away and went to graduate school? So... color me confused...

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 09:28 PM
I believe that she maybe leased her dates temporarily. Maybe she has decided to run them again? Don't really know but that is a possibility.

vxf111
Nov. 21, 2011, 09:28 PM
The only real argument I have ever heard in favor of the mileage rule is the fear about class sizes being too small and insane people hitting more than one show per day for points.

The first, I think, I would personally feel comfortable with some relaxation of rules about combining classes to deal with that problem. Or else, perhaps trainers/riders need to coordinate somewhat to make sure they have enough people to compete against. We do that now all winter ANYWAY even WITH the mileage rule. This is a genuine concern. I just happen to opine that it's a lesser concern than propping up bad shows.

The second could easily be fixed with a rule that says qualifying points for indoors/year end/Devon etc. cannot come from more than one show per day.

I have never heard any other arguments in favor that I thought had any legitimacy.

vxf111
Nov. 21, 2011, 09:31 PM
If there are only 200 horses available as entries in a given area and you all of a sudden have 10 or even 5 shows instead of the one that holds the date currently then ALL the shows will fail and the next thing you'll be crying about is there are NO shows in your area.

SA, I understand and don't necessarily disagree with a LOT of what you say. But I think a lot of the argument FOR the rule assumes a finite number of people interested in showing. At least in my area, that is not the case. It's not that there are 10 people and if there are 2 shows, it'll split 5 and 5. It's that ONLY 10 people are WILLING to attend the current show. If there was a choice, you might find that 20 or 25 people are willing to show on that date. I know a lot of people with a list of shows they just don't go to. Venue issues, show management, distance, etc. whatever it is. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't show that date if they had a choice to show somewhere else.

AliCat
Nov. 21, 2011, 10:26 PM
Just an example of what we are dealing with as far as horse show options in this area. I went to the NJPHA website and clicked on the show schedule from 2011.

http://www.njpha.net/calendarJan-June2011.pdf

http://www.njpha.net/2011-July-Nov.pdf

There are plenty of old gaurds and new faces in that schedule.

chunky munky
Nov. 21, 2011, 11:02 PM
@ vx. The classes would be too small in many cases. The idea of qualifying for indoors in the hunters @ one day shows is non existant. You will find that most of those points out of necessity of totals for top 15 shows need to come from A/AA rated shows. These are not run on one day. It may hold true for the Medal or Maclay Finals, but that is not that difficult to qualify for that one needs to run to two shows in one day.
But with too many shows you will have a problem of getting to a show and finding that there are not 6 horses for the Medal, or the A/O didn't fill. You will also find that when a show needs to give out about 60% of the total prize $ to the top 3 placings that with three horses in the class the entries do not come close to covering the expenses of the show. The show that loses that much money will not survive. That does not mean its a bad show necessarily, just not an immense customer base in that area or at that time of year. That also makes it difficult for the facility to pump any money into improvements that you all want.
You cannot expect that the mom and pop shop can give you the kind of facilities that HITS or WEF can, running small rated shows. The income from the shows just is not equal to the output. And that will ultimately be the complete demise of the smaller A shows.

S A McKee
Nov. 21, 2011, 11:03 PM
SA, I understand and don't necessarily disagree with a LOT of what you say. But I think a lot of the argument FOR the rule assumes a finite number of people interested in showing. At least in my area, that is not the case. It's not that there are 10 people and if there are 2 shows, it'll split 5 and 5. It's that ONLY 10 people are WILLING to attend the current show. If there was a choice, you might find that 20 or 25 people are willing to show on that date. I know a lot of people with a list of shows they just don't go to. Venue issues, show management, distance, etc. whatever it is. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't show that date if they had a choice to show somewhere else.

Each zone does have a finite number of members. That makes up the 'available to show' group. You can obtain USEF members by state, not just zone.

Those that do not show at present, for whatever reason, are unlikely to show ( even though they say they will ) if more venues are available or new management comes on board.

Most zones on the eastern seaboard had more shows in 2010 than they did in 2009. But for many shows the number of exhibitors is decreasing each year. Dissatisfaction with venues or show management is not the only factor.The economy plays a major part. Just increasing the number of options has not improved participation.

Lord Helpus
Nov. 21, 2011, 11:17 PM
Perhaps time to put your money where your mouth is and start something in your area.

HUH? this is NOT a thread about starting C shows. That is another thread. This is a thread about the mileage rule. I am not decrying the lack of C shows. I am questioning why the recognized shows need protection from each other. I merely mentioned the unrecognized shows held here last summer as an example of the lack of interest in that kind of event.

PS: You quoted a post allegedly written by me when it wasn't. As far as I can tell it was a mish mash of posts written by several people.

Please do not do that again. I am not comfortable with being misquoted.

Janet
Nov. 21, 2011, 11:38 PM
It IS possible to both protect existing shows and encourage new shows by dealing with each situation individually, rather than relying on a single, inflexible "mileage" rule.

In Eventing, if there is a new event, or if an existing show wants to change its date, they send a request to the Area Chair. The Area Chair checks with with theorganizers of events that might be affected (including the week before and after). Then with the rest of the organizers, and the Area Council. Then the Area Chair makes a decision.

But it DOES require good will and compromise amongst the organizers. Sometimes Events run on the same weekend relatively close. Other times events far apart are considered in conflict, and not allowed to run on the same weekend.

But it is considered on a case by case basis instead of having a blanket rule.

Linny
Nov. 21, 2011, 11:47 PM
It appears that in tough economic times that the mileage rule is a bit of a crutch to suport declining attendance at A/AA shows. When times were good it was more of a club used to play "Whack-a-Show" on any upstart that dared to enter the fiefdom of said shows.

While this thread is not about C shows, the A's do need to realize that where good C's exist, they are poaching customers. This is a luxury sport. For me to do the 2'9 "mortified adults" at HITS out of my current barn would cost about $1k when all was said and done. That's serious money, even for folks with relatively high income when the specter of layoffs and salary cuts hang over many heads.
Shows get their A rating because of the money offered for the high end participant, but those prizes are largely paid for by armies of "modified" "pre-" "short stirrup" "rusty stirrup" "low" and "special" who show up because they just don't have alot of options. Many of them are opting out. My barn didn't go to HITS at all this year because none of the clients wanted to fork over the money.
Now, if only we could have a decent local or B/C scene around here. If we did, HITS might actually feel it. As far as Saugerties is concerned, Tom S has been the beneficiary of the weak local scene around here.

Lord Helpus
Nov. 21, 2011, 11:48 PM
Each zone does have a finite number of members. That makes up the 'available to show' group. You can obtain USEF members by state, not just zone.

You also have all the contiguous states. Can't forget them!


Those that do not show at present, for whatever reason, are unlikely to show ( even though they say they will ) if more venues are available or new management comes on board.

Has a study been done to confirm this? Do you have the cites?


Most zones on the eastern seaboard had more shows in 2010 than they did in 2009. But for many shows the number of exhibitors is decreasing each year. Dissatisfaction with venues or show management is not the only factor.The economy plays a major part. Just increasing the number of options has not improved participation.

So, here we have a situation where we have fewer and fewer exhibitors attending the existing shows. Various factors come into play, of course: The economy -- yes, it is even harder to leave home for 5 days and send the horse on the road for 5 days in this economy to go to a show 3 hours away. Easier to have a show 45 minutes away which you can stay home and trailer into every day. Then there is the venue and management dissatisfaction issue. Makes no sense to me to insist on maintaining the status quo because of this. Why notshake things up a little and bring in new blood? It might actually INCREASE the people attending horse shows!

I know that, if I have a choice of 2 shows, every thing else being equal, I am going to the show I can trailer in to on a daily basis. It cuts my show expenses in 1/2. By saving $$ on hotels and farm and dog sitters, I am able to spend it on entry fees. Instead of 1 - 2 shows a month, I could do 3 - 4 shows a month, if there were enough shows in my area to go to.

I am just one member -- I remain just one member. But my show budget doubles when shows are close enough that I can live at home while I show.

So counting the people available to show is an incorrect methodology. Better to count disposable income and find a way to funnel the highest % of that directly into the horse show coffers.

Doing away with the mileage rule is a good place to start.

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 01:00 AM
@ vx. The classes would be too small in many cases. The idea of qualifying for indoors in the hunters @ one day shows is non existant. You will find that most of those points out of necessity of totals for top 15 shows need to come from A/AA rated shows. These are not run on one day. It may hold true for the Medal or Maclay Finals, but that is not that difficult to qualify for that one needs to run to two shows in one day.
But with too many shows you will have a problem of getting to a show and finding that there are not 6 horses for the Medal, or the A/O didn't fill. You will also find that when a show needs to give out about 60% of the total prize $ to the top 3 placings that with three horses in the class the entries do not come close to covering the expenses of the show. The show that loses that much money will not survive. That does not mean its a bad show necessarily, just not an immense customer base in that area or at that time of year. That also makes it difficult for the facility to pump any money into improvements that you all want.
You cannot expect that the mom and pop shop can give you the kind of facilities that HITS or WEF can, running small rated shows. The income from the shows just is not equal to the output. And that will ultimately be the complete demise of the smaller A shows.



This is a totally non-unique argument. Last winter I remember a lot of posts from people begging others to help them fill classes for points. Almost every week someone was looking for people to fill the juniors, A/As, A/Os, and eq. That's WITH the mileage rule. I would have helped fill... if the shows were closer/better/more worthwhile for my money. So I was one person who didn't show at any particular given date but WOULD have if there had been a better option. I am the empirical evidence that the "finite number" of people "in a zone" available to show is actually a fluid number. I'm in the number. But only at certain venues.

I don't care one bit about year end awards/qualifying etc. A bet a lot of people don't. They just want to go show where they don't have to lie awake at night worrying if the footing will be frozen ruts. People who are point crazy go do it in Florida. So the mileage rule isn't really about them. It's about us who stay home. We'd show if the options were good. Or not if they're not.

I think we're largely talking past one another (I don't see what C rated shows have to do with anything). The mileage rule isn't really help people get points. As you point out, it's hard to compete with circuit long shows for winter points. This argument cuts against you. If, as you postulate, north winter show points are worthless because the WEFers get so many more, who cares if the numbers drop at each show due to competition? If you're showing for the SHOW and not the points, who cares if the divisions are small/don't fill.

It only takes 3 to fill. Make friends in your zone if filling is such a huge concern :)

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 01:03 AM
Each zone does have a finite number of members. That makes up the 'available to show' group. You can obtain USEF members by state, not just zone.

Those that do not show at present, for whatever reason, are unlikely to show ( even though they say they will ) if more venues are available or new management comes on board.

Most zones on the eastern seaboard had more shows in 2010 than they did in 2009. But for many shows the number of exhibitors is decreasing each year. Dissatisfaction with venues or show management is not the only factor.The economy plays a major part. Just increasing the number of options has not improved participation.

I think we can both be right. Yes, to some extent there are a finite number. And the economy certainly didn't help. But fixing broken shows and giving more options will help maximize the number of finate participants actually participating at any given time. See my example above. Sometimes I am part of the number and sometimes not. If there were better options, I'd be in the number a lot more.

fordtraktor
Nov. 22, 2011, 08:32 AM
When someone enacts what looks to be a clear restraint on competition, the classic antitrust response when there is not a clear per se illegal situation at hand is precisely what Lord Helpus is requesting: what are the procompetitive justifications for the restraint? What are the supposed goods that are resulting from the restraint? And do they outweigh the negative effects on competition?

So far, I'm not hearing anything from the mileage rule's champions that make me like it one iota better.

It is not just about prices. Potential competition raises the bar on quality -- where a show cannot compete on price, as chunky says they cannot, they will instead compete on offering a better service/product to remain competitive, in a competitive market.

Without competition, again, we lose those forces and the benefits to the customers that accrue from them.

The end of the mileage rule would not mean that new shows would spring up all over the place, causing chaos. No one in their right mind is going to flush a lot of money down the toilet unless they think the market will bear a new show. New shows will take into consideration existing shows before entering the market, they have to as a business matter. Rumors of complete and utter show schedule hysteria are greatly exaggerated.

RockinHorse
Nov. 22, 2011, 08:33 AM
Reduce the distances for protection. This would allow some additional shows to start up but not allow 15 shows on the same weekend within 50 miles. Nobody wins in that scenario.
If there are only 200 horses available as entries in a given area and you all of a sudden have 10 or even 5 shows instead of the one that holds the date currently then ALL the shows will fail and the next thing you'll be crying about is there are NO shows in your area.



I seriously doubt if the mileage rule was dropped, you would see 10 or 15 shows spring up everywhere (and if they did they would probably deserve to fail).

What I think is more likely to happen is that a few enterprising show managers (existing or new) who understand the market in their area and their customers would offer shows only on dates held by the shows that the exhibitors are always complaining about. In any given zone, I think most people know what shows people do and don't like and why.

The enterprising show manager would have an opportunity to try to produce a better show (friendly staff, different schedule, better food, etc. whatever it is people don't like about the other show).

If they could produce the better show, they would proably be successful and the unpopular show would either have to step up or go away. If they couldn't do it, they would go away.

Lord Helpus
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:02 AM
Just an example of what we are dealing with as far as horse show options in this area. I went to the NJPHA website and clicked on the show schedule from 2011.

http://www.njpha.net/calendarJan-June2011.pdf

http://www.njpha.net/2011-July-Nov.pdf

There are plenty of old gaurds and new faces in that schedule.

OK. I clicked on the top link and it opened to Jan. The first name that popped out at me was a 3 day A show "at", "managed", "put on by" Snowbird.

That is just wrong. Those dates have obviously been sold to someone else and no longer have anything to do with Vicky.

And Ashley Meadows' dates? "Temporarily leased"? Does anyone really believe that? Get real.

Dates are, pure and simple being sold to friends to keep out competition.

This is so wrong. When the farm has closed down, Vicky's husband has died and Vicky herself is too old to run a show, yet "Snowbird" still is putting on A shows??? Makes me want to throw something at the computer screen.:mad:

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:07 AM
OK. I clicked on the top link and it opened to Jan. The first name that popped out at me was a 3 day A show "at", "managed", "put on by" Snowbird.

That is just wrong. Those dates have obviously been sold to someone else and no longer have anything to do with Vicky.

And Ashley Meadows' dates? "Temporarily leased"? Does anyone really believe that? Get real.

Dates are, pure and simple being sold to friends to keep out competition.

This is so wrong. When the farm has closed down, Vicky's husband has died and Vicky herself is too old to run a show, yet "Snowbird" still is putting on A shows??? Makes me want to throw something at the computer screen.:mad:

I could very well be wrong, but I want to say CLJ is running the snowbird shows/has those dates.

pds
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:33 AM
When someone enacts what looks to be a clear restraint on competition, the classic antitrust response when there is not a clear per se illegal situation at hand is precisely what Lord Helpus is requesting: what are the procompetitive justifications for the restraint? What are the supposed goods that are resulting from the restraint? And do they outweigh the negative effects on competition?

So far, I'm not hearing anything from the mileage rule's champions that make me like it one iota better.

It is not just about prices. Potential competition raises the bar on quality -- where a show cannot compete on price, as chunky says they cannot, they will instead compete on offering a better service/product to remain competitive, in a competitive market.

Without competition, again, we lose those forces and the benefits to the customers that accrue from them.

The end of the mileage rule would not mean that new shows would spring up all over the place, causing chaos. No one in their right mind is going to flush a lot of money down the toilet unless they think the market will bear a new show. New shows will take into consideration existing shows before entering the market, they have to as a business matter. Rumors of complete and utter show schedule hysteria are greatly exaggerated.

Very well said.

To put into context a bit; What do you think the price of gas would be or services offered if gas stations were required to be 250 miles apart? You think they would worry about clean bathrooms, or cold soda, etc. when they know you have no other reasonable choice?

Competition is good. It gives power to the consumer and that is something that is very lacking under the current show date system.

S A McKee
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:35 AM
OK. I clicked on the top link and it opened to Jan. The first name that popped out at me was a 3 day A show "at", "managed", "put on by" Snowbird.

That is just wrong. Those dates have obviously been sold to someone else and no longer have anything to do with Vicky.

.., yet "Snowbird" still is putting on A shows??? Makes me want to throw something at the computer screen.:mad:

Stamp your feet and throw things all you want.
Well,you'd be OBVIOUSLY just wrong.LOL
For 2011 Snowbird still owned the license but Vicky and her family no longer managed the show. Vx is correct about who managed those shows.
I'd have to check the USEF calendar ( something you didn't do apparently) to see what the situation is for 2012.

This is not that unusual. Often the person who owns the license contracts with a third party to provide show management services.

S A McKee
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:40 AM
So far, I'm not hearing anything from the mileage rule's champions that make me like it one iota better.

.

That's because you aren't listening. :D

The mileage rule has withstood legal challenges. If the law was as cut and dried as you suggest how is that possible?

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:43 AM
Random idea that might help a little...

Rather than end the mileage rule altogether, designate that only a certain percentage of any given person/company's dates can be held from year to year. Maybe a range, like 50-75%. So if I am Company X and I have 3 dates, I can at most keep two of those dates the following year, and the remaining dates frees up and someone else can take it and give it a try afterwards OR that third date becomes "unprotected" and Company X can run a show on that date but so can the competititors, Company Y and Z.

It wouldn't solve the problem (I would guess it's a lot more profitable to run several planned shows than just one) but it would allow SOME new players and SOME competition into the game. It would also be a way to phase out the mileage rule without just yanking the rug out from people who are counting on dates/guaranteed shows.

Another possibility would be to designate that only some dates are subject to the mileage rule and others aren't. make people who own the dates explain why they need protection and allow that protection but only for some portion of the dates. Just throwing ideas out.

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:44 AM
That's because you aren't listening. :D

The mileage rule has withstood legal challenges. If the law was as cut and dried as you suggest how is that possible?

I didn't read FT's post to be saying the mileage rule was illegal. She was saying certain monopolies are illegal, and that this smells like (not is, but smells like) a monopoly. And naturally, when something smells like a monopoly, you question whether that restriction on competition is necessary.

S A McKee
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:55 AM
I didn't read FT's post to be saying the mileage rule was illegal. She was saying certain monopolies are illegal, and that this smells like (not is, but smells like) a monopoly. And naturally, when something smells like a monopoly, you question whether that restriction on competition is necessary.

Of course, but FT's posts refer to 'anti trust' and similar buzz words.
All hints that there is something illegal going on.
When in fact this has already been challenged and USEF won.

The COTH 'posse' would be thinking that legal action is possible based on FT's posts when disclosure would reveal that's already been tried. Of course if anybody wants to throw away a lot of $$ and try again have at it.

The answer is to work within the system.

Lord Helpus
Nov. 22, 2011, 10:07 AM
Stamp your feet and throw things all you want.
Well,you'd be OBVIOUSLY just wrong.LOL
For 2011 Snowbird still owned the license but Vicky and her family no longer managed the show. Vx is correct about who managed those shows.
I'd have to check the USEF calendar ( something you didn't do apparently) to see what the situation is for 2012.

This is not that unusual. Often the person who owns the license contracts with a third party to provide show management services.

OK. I am willing to learn.

What is the real world difference between the licensee contracting with a 3rd party and with the dates being sold/leased -- whatever terminology you want to use?

I.e. How are You so sure that Vicky and her family contracted to have the Snowbird shows managed, as opposed to selling their dates?

Is this a distinction without a difference? Are we talking semantics here?

S A McKee: I am also interested in these "legal challenges" that the Mileage Rule has been confronted with. Has the USEF/USHJA been taken to court over the mileage rule? If so, I think that it would be Federal Court since the issues here are Monopoly and Restraint on Interstate Commerce. Can you please point me to the rulings which support your statement that "the mileage rule has withstood legal challenges?"

Statements such as yours always pique my interest and so I will invariably ask a follow up question to ascertain the validity or existence of the outcome. It would help if you would include such information in your post when you first make the statement.

Thanks!

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 10:07 AM
The only non-protectionist reasons I've ever seen proffered for keeping the rule are...

1. Prevent point maniacs

2. Keep numbers up in divisions

and I suppose

3. Predictability/planning (but that's a weak argument because you could still plan a show ahead in a non-mileage rule world, you just wouldn't be able to plan whether or not you had competition)

What are any other reasons in support of the mileage rule? Other than protectionist ones?

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 10:08 AM
S A McKee: I am also interested in these "legal challenges" that the Mileage Rule has been confronted with. Has the USEF/USHJA been taken to court over the mileage rule? If so, I think that it would be Federal Court since the issues here are Monopoly and Restraint on Interstate Commerce. Can you please point me to the rulings which support your statement that "the mileage rule has withstood legal challenges?"

Statements such as yours always pique my interest and so I will invariably ask a follow up question to ascertain the validity or existence of the outcome. It would help if you would include such information in your post when you first make the statement.

Thanks!

I have a recollection that the rule was challenged in court. I don't have any stronger recollection than that, but I do seem to remember a challenge quite a while ago?!

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 10:27 AM
OK. I am willing to learn.

What is the real world difference between the licensee contracting with a 3rd party and with the dates being sold/leased -- whatever terminology you want to use?

I.e. How are You so sure that Vicky and her family contracted to have the Snowbird shows managed, as opposed to selling their dates?

Is this a distinction without a difference? Are we talking semantics here?

I would venture a guess that hardly anyone around here is still using "their" own dates (except maybe Duncraven and Woodegde). Last I checked, the "Our Farm" dates were being run by Katie Benson (Our Farm doesn't even call itself "Our Farm" anymore!), the Snowbird dates by CLJ, you're right that someone else had the Ashley Meadows dates... owning dates around here is an awfully good investment, I'd guess ;)

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 10:32 AM
JES Props. v. USA Equestrian, Inc., 458 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. Fla. 2006)

Lexis blurb...

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff equestrian event promoters sought review of a summary judgment from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted in favor of defendants, the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) and various competing promoters, in plaintiffs' action alleging that defendants violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiffs were unable to secure dates on which to hold equestrian competitions in Florida because of the 250-mile restriction contained in the USEF's Mileage Rule. Plaintiffs challenged the Mileage Rule as a violation of 15 U.S.C.S. § 1. Plaintiffs also contended that the competing promoters committed antitrust violations by granting each other waivers while refusing to grant waivers to plaintiffs. Although plaintiffs challenged the district court's determination that they lacked antitrust standing, the court found it unnecessary to determine whether plaintiffs had standing because it concluded that defendants were immune from antitrust liability. The district court properly held that the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (ASA), 36 U.S.C.S. § 220501 et seq., impliedly repealed the antitrust laws thus giving defendants immunity from antitrust liability. Because 36 U.S.C.S. § 220524 of the ASA required national governing bodies, such as USEF, to promulgate rules to minimize conflicts in schedules, the court found that the imposition of antitrust liability for the promulgation of such a rule was plainly repugnant to the ASA.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment.

fordtraktor
Nov. 22, 2011, 10:54 AM
The law is not complicated, S. A. McKee. You weigh the procompetitive justifications against the anticompetitive harm. Its application to the facts is much more difficult. The inquiry requires extensive data, dueling experts, lots of $$ and expertise. I don't like the way the mileage rule smells because I like competition, but I did not say it was illegal, I made that clear I was not making legal pronouncements in my first post.

The USEF case was not decided on the antitrust merits. And it never will be, because they appear to have an antitrust exemption. That does not make what they are doing "competitive" from an analytical standpoint. However, it may not be illegal for reasons entirely unrelated to its competitive impact.

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 11:18 AM
It is not unusual in competitive sports that dates are regulated. This exists in horse racing, tennis and I am sure a whole group of others. Lordy or others, if you have a question about who owns a date you look in the bottom left corner of the USEF calendar listing where it say: Licensee. That is where you find who owns the date.
Agree w above poster that all the stamping of feet and indignity about the mileage rule being upheld by the courts will get you no where.
There ARE open dates. You can run a show. It may need to be a Bor C, but frankly there are not many facilities that will accomodate a successful AA horse show and I doubt that many of you have one. Yes, northern winter shows have to have a relaxation of some of the standards by design.
Lordy's complaint about why she doesn't like the mileage rule was that she wants to attend nice horse shows. My suggestion that she start one seems to anger her. Not sure what the agenda is. She also is scolding me about my poor posting skills, and ignoring answers from multiple posters. Methinks she just kind of likes being indignant ;-)

Offset
Nov. 22, 2011, 11:21 AM
I have just had an interesting discussion re the mileage rule with a friend who shows primarily in the southeast. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the mileage rule impacts people in different zones VERY differently, the northeast and the southeast seem particularly affected, while Zone 3, in my opinion, would be virtually unaffected whether the rule was in place or not.

With the exception of Culpeper/HITS, I think there are plenty of good, well run shows in VA/NC that would remain unchanged and well supported regardless, Keswick, Upperville, Rose Mount, Deep Run, Lexington, Sedgefield, NCHJA, Duke, Blowing Rock, etc. - these shows continue to be huge, and in my opinion, well run, and I don't think the mileage rule has anything to do with that. I think the possibility of a 'competitor' for these shows and dates coming in if the mileage rule were lifted is virtually non-existent.

Other areas that have long standing circuits and a concentration of shows, Conyers, and certaing northeast shows, etc., are a very different matter.

My point is that the mileage rule impacts different areas and horse shows in very different ways; abolishing it completely, or keeping it for that matter,
is not an issue that is as black and white as it may seem at first blush.

MHM
Nov. 22, 2011, 11:33 AM
If you want to dig a little deeper into the legal history books about the mileage rule, you can Google Ashley Meadows Farm vs. AHSA for an earlier case in the 1980s.

Yes, the very same Ashley Meadows.

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 11:40 AM
The other thing that you all seem to forget is that the USEF is not and was never set up to be a consumer organization. It is about governing and guiding the sport. You may or may not like that but it is the fact.

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 11:47 AM
The answer "if you don't like it, go start your own shows!" is so obtuse, that I almost can't believe it's being repeated more than once. The mileage rule PREVENTS someone from setting up a competing show (including, as I understand it, a competing B or C rated show). Isn't that obvious?

I find it amusing that there are plenty of people posting in support of the mileage rule, but aside from the justifications I myself raised and refuted-- I don't see any of the supporters adding anything into the plus column of GOOD THINGS caused by the mileage rule. Just a lot of telling people to go play in another sandbox and explaining that the mileage rule is allowed-- but that's the different than JUSTIFYING THE RULE'S EXISTANCE.

I serious want to know. Other than the 3 reasons I raised in post 92 and the fact that it benefits people who currently own dates-- WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THE MILEAGE RULE? Maybe I am overlooking some significant benefits. I'd like to know! I listed the only 3 I have ever heard. And then there's the obvious financial benefit to those who own and can sell dates. Please tell me the other benefits?!

The current lists stands at...

1. Financial/anti-competitive advantage for people who now own dates
2. Makes it harder for competitors from going to multiple shows in one day
3. Hopefully increases class sizes because the competition isn't spread out at multiple conflicting shows
4. Easier to plan when you know the schedule because it repeats year after year

What are the other benefits? Because #1 is only good for the date grubbers, and not anyone else (certainly not competitors). #2 could be dealt with in many other ways, and frankly I can't see disadvantaging 99% of the populace to ward against the percieved insanity of what 1% of crazy people might do if they could. #3 is a legitimate benefit, as I see it. The only legitimate benefit. I just think the pool of competitors will increase with competition, negating any spread. And the lack of competitors exists in the status quo. This can also be solved by coordination among competitors. #4 isn't really a benefit of the mileage rule per sae but of planning horse shows a ahead of time. This is just as likely to occur without the mileage rule, managers still need to get date approval from USEF in advance and I beliebe would settle into a schedule after a bit of shuffling and reaction to loss of the rule.

What are the benefits I'm missing? Because I count only 1 legitimate one, and I think it's mainly non-unique and will be solved for post-elimination of the rule.

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 12:12 PM
I can assure you that if i wanted to run a B or C show in Zone 3 that I could find multiple dates to do so. The OP also lives in Zone 3 and after checking mapquest, etc I am certain the same is true in NC. I haven't worked it, but I would bet that I could find at least one week to run an A. What part of that do you not understand?

Again, you keep asking about the benefits. The one you all keep ignoring is that with a certain amount of protection a licensee can more confidently spend money to upgrade their product and facility and promote their events knowing that they can be assured of a license for their horse show date. It hopefully helps management not lose their shirts trying to run a rated horse show.

What you really are asking is what benefits does it give the exhibitor. Hopefully assurance that classes for the most part will fill so they can get those ever desired points. Hopefully a somewhat quality product. But as I stated earlier, the USEF regulations have come to pass for the longevity of USEF horse shows, not necessarily only for the convenience and enjoyment of the exhibitor.

fordtraktor
Nov. 22, 2011, 12:39 PM
The other thing that you all seem to forget is that the USEF is not and was never set up to be a consumer organization. It is about governing and guiding the sport. You may or may not like that but it is the fact.

Oh, believe me, that is and always has been all too clear.

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 12:47 PM
I can assure you that if i wanted to run a B or C show in Zone 3 that I could find multiple dates to do so. The OP also lives in Zone 3 and after checking mapquest, etc I am certain the same is true in NC. I haven't worked it, but I would bet that I could find at least one week to run an A. What part of that do you not understand?

Again, you keep asking about the benefits. The one you all keep ignoring is that with a certain amount of protection a licensee can more confidently spend money to upgrade their product and facility and promote their events knowing that they can be assured of a license for their horse show date. It hopefully helps management not lose their shirts trying to run a rated horse show.

What you really are asking is what benefits does it give the exhibitor. Hopefully assurance that classes for the most part will fill so they can get those ever desired points. Hopefully a somewhat quality product. But as I stated earlier, the USEF regulations have come to pass for the longevity of USEF horse shows, not necessarily only for the convenience and enjoyment of the exhibitor.

Unless I misunderstand the rule, I cannot run a B or C show within the mileage zone on a day that, say, Our Farm has an A rated show. Given that all the decent dates (other than holidays, middle of the week, etc.) are taken, how can I go out and run a B rated show under the current rule? What am I missing?

The argument about licensees feeling secure and being able to upgrade is non unique and empirically disproven. Please take a look at any of the date hogger shows outfits I've mentioned in my zone OTHER than Woodedge and please tell me the upgrades they've put in place?! Our Farm looks largely exactly as it did when I was a kid! Any nominal upgrades were done for the boarders, not for the shows.

Post mileage rule elimination, licensees could STILL RUN SHOWS. So they'd have the same incentive to upgrade facilities. There's always a risk of competitors not coming, under the mileage rule world and post elimination. The elimination of the mileage rule doesn't preventy, say, Our Farm, for continuing to hold the shows it holds on the dates it holds them. Either people will come and support the show, or they won't. Same thing post-mileage rule, except there's a choice for competitors. The mileage rule doesn't take someone's dates AWAY. It just means someone ELSE could also hold a show on that date. Which I think, actually TURNS your argument. Because the competition is what will force shows to make upgrades- not the current system which leaves them the "only game in town" meaning they don't HAVE to upgrade (and, largely, don't!)

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 12:51 PM
Out of curiosity, I would like to know the affiliation of folks posting on this thread. Who owns dates and runs rated shows and who is a competitor. I'm just a competitor.

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 12:57 PM
I have been a horse show exhibitor since 1964. First as a pony rider, then as a junior in hunters, jumpers and EQ. Then a professional. Then an amateur. Then a professional again. Been a USEF judge since 1981. And I am a USEF horse show date licensee. I doubt that anyone on this thread has experienced the horse show world from more points of view than I have, LOL.

Lord Helpus
Nov. 22, 2011, 01:41 PM
I have been an exhibitor since 1955, (ponies, junior hunters and amateur hunters), a professional, run a boarding stable which had show riders in it and heard their frustration at the AHSA et.seq., Been an ASHA Big S Steward and am currently, at age 62, looking forward to doing the older A/O's in 2012.

Funny that our paths have never touched, except that I have lived in and showed in Zones 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11. From those experiences I have seen the effects of the mileage rule from many different perspectives.

And will you stop talking about the C shows already. As of right now, they are a dying, dead breed. We are talking about exhibitors who want to do the recognized divisions having a choice of convenient, well run shows.

Maybe all we need to do change the rule so that licenses cannot be sold or leased. That the licensee's can hire management groups for a set fee, but those management groups are just that, employees of the licensees.

If the licensee cannot hold a show every year (a one time, one year exemption for exceptional circumstances can be granted), then that date becomes open and will be reassigned by a lottery system which is open to all and held under full scrutiny of the members, so as to insure that it is a fair and equal process.

THEN the show dates will not be held hostage by the inner sanctum of managers. Like Chunky Monkey.

PS: CM, when was the last time you showed at a recognized level? When was the last time you were affected by the mileage rule from an exhibitor's standpoint?

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 02:23 PM
Mid 2000's myself. But I also train a few students who are certainly affected. No one is held hostage, here Lordy. And please spell my name correctly ;-) There is no inner sanctum. I got one of my dates in 2008 BECAUSE IT WAS SITTING THERE. The other I got this year, BECAUSE IT WAS SITTING THERE. Stop the whining. As we chatted privately, you say there are no winter AA shows in NC and that is because of date protection. Not true. There are none because THEY DON'T WORK. Not enough entries and people that normally show at that level go south. If they would work, trust me, one of the current licensees would do it. The fact is if I am not mistaken some of the lower level recognized shows in NC winterdom have been cancelled in recent years due to lack of entries. If you can find someone that wants to run a AA rated show in any facility in NC that I know of I bet you could work with a present licensee on getting a date. No mileage problem.
And though you feel that you are above showing at the B and C levels, you would be surprised by how many people have contacted me due to this thread about perhaps starting a viable B and C circuit. I will continue to think in that direction even though you feel it not worthy. If someone did it right it may be a very nice solution for those not wanting to pay the fees/travel involved for the AA shows. The only difference between jumping the 3'3" A/O at a good B show and a good AA show is what it costs, the prize money and the C will not really work for hunter division qualifying at WIHS, Pa Nat. or NHS. Othet than that, not much difference. I have attended A shows that ran from 8am-6pm where they dragged the ring once per day. I have attended nice unrecognized shows that drag every 3 classes and look like a flower bomb went off in the ring.
Call me whacky, but I fail to see how the sale/lease of licenses has much to do with eliminating your perceived problem. You will still have the mileage issue you so deplore.
@vx, I'll bet one could find a facility 50 miles from the shows you mentioned to run a competing show in Zone 2. It would be interesting to see what the attendance #'s are at the current shows.

Give and Take
Nov. 22, 2011, 02:24 PM
So I can see and have experienced both sides of the coin here. The local A/AA show management do work very hard to keep up a facility they lease. Mike and Mollie Galloway have never skimped on dragging and watering the arenas, building new jumps each year, etc. They have 6+ weeks of dates at the same facility each year.

However, we've lost some area A/AA shows that were run at area farms like Brawleys and Hood River because the investment was high and the turn out declined over time. Some thought it was the economy, some thought it was easier for trainers to camp out at the same facility for 2 week blocks, 6 weeks out of the year.

The result is that alot of the WA people worked to get BC re-instated as a contiguous point state and alot go up there. It's about the same drive for them up to BC or down to Portland.

The show in Bend, OR has been averaging 6-700 horses for it's AA week, where the shows in the Portland area average about 300. This show is on grass, has different management, and is in a beautiful rec area. The footing isn't better or worse, but it's in a different location and alot of exhibitors like the change. It also draws more out of state barns.

From my perspective, eliminating the restriction for A, B and C rated shows would do more for our area and help grow the sport.

I also think creating a more robust exhibitor eval system with some teeth is a good way to go. If you're not uber wealthy to show up and down the west coast, there should be a way to impact the process.

There is no perfect system for all the zones, but eliminating the mileage rule between A+, B and C would be a great start in my opinion.

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 02:30 PM
@vx, I'll bet one could find a facility 50 miles from the shows you mentioned to run a competing show in Zone 2. It would be interesting to see what the attendance #'s are at the current shows.

As I understand the rule, and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong. On date X, if Our Farm has an A rated show, there cannot be a B or C rated show at the Dream Park on that date. If I am misunderstanding the rule, please let me know. My understanding is that the mileage zones get smaller for non A/AA rated shows-- but the rule still prevents overlap with an A show. Perhaps there could be a B at Our Farm and a B at the Dream Park (because the zone of protection for a B show is smaller)-- but that's a moot point because all the dates are totally snatched up for A shows around here.

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 02:35 PM
In Zone 2, a B against a B needs to be 75 miles apart. A C against a B needs to be 50 miles apart. An A against a B needs to be 90 miles apart. ( GR308)

MHM
Nov. 22, 2011, 02:40 PM
It is about governing and guiding the sport.

That role should include making provisions for the future growth of the sport.

Growth is unlikely if the fee structure continues to exclude more and more people from even starting to show at USEF shows, never mind progressing up to the AA level.

I believe it was about 10-12 years ago that the first year green division at WEF had 100 entries in it, or close to it. The pre-green division, adults, amateurs, and others all had very healthy numbers. I don't recall the number of first year entries in 2011, but I think it was well under 50. And it had been dwindling for years, not just since the relatively recent downturn in the economy.

The dramatic decline in entries should have the USEF thinking hard about ways to make shows MORE inclusive, not less so, for the future of the sport. If that means changing the mileage rule or the prize money requirements to make shows more appealing to more people, so be it.

meupatdoes
Nov. 22, 2011, 02:46 PM
The only non-protectionist reasons I've ever seen proffered for keeping the rule are...

1. Prevent point maniacs
...


The easy way to prevent point maniacs is to only allow the points from one show, whichever has lower points, to count for any given day.

So if you go do Division X at one show and get 25 points and then on the same day you go to the show next door and get 3 points, then your point tally for that division for that day is 3 points.

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 02:53 PM
In Zone 2, a B against a B needs to be 75 miles apart. A C against a B needs to be 50 miles apart. An A against a B needs to be 90 miles apart. ( GR308)

So what I said is correct. These venues are all too close. If any one of them has an A (and they pretty much have an A at one of them most all winter long except on holiday weekends/weeks) then no one else can have a rated show.

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 02:53 PM
The easy way to prevent point maniacs is to only allow the points from one show, whichever has lower points, to count for any given day.

So if you go do Division X at one show and get 25 points and then on the same day you go to the show next door and get 3 points, then your point tally for that division for that day is 3 points.

Agree. This is SUCH an easy fix through other sources, it cannot possible be a reason to prop up the mileage rule.

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 02:55 PM
That role should include making provisions for the future growth of the sport.

Growth is unlikely if the fee structure continues to exclude more and more people from even starting to show at USEF shows, never mind progressing up to the AA level.

I believe it was about 10-12 years ago that the first year green division at WEF had 100 entries in it, or close to it. The pre-green division, adults, amateurs, and others all had very healthy numbers. I don't recall the number of first year entries in 2011, but I think it was well under 50. And it had been dwindling for years, not just since the relatively recent downturn in the economy.

The dramatic decline in entries should have the USEF thinking hard about ways to make shows MORE inclusive, not less so, for the future of the sport. If that means changing the mileage rule or the prize money requirements to make shows more appealing to more people, so be it.

I ver much agree with you there regarding the membership fees. You don't want to see the check that I write each year for the USEF,USHJA, Officials licenses in 4 divisions, not to mention the various local groups, VHSA, MDHSA, NCHSA. Then we have to pay show license fees each year ( no , we do not get the licenses for free)
I agree w/ you on other points as well. I would like to see work in making current shows better and growing the lower level shows. More shows will not really help anything, just give the USEF more revenue from the show license fees they charge.

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 03:03 PM
So what I said is correct. These venues are all too close. If any one of them has an A (and they pretty much have an A at one of them most all winter long except on holiday weekends/weeks) then no one else can have a rated show.

Have you really checked the mileage? You might be surprised. And certainly there are other venues. Frankly, you probably couldn't pay me enough to run a winter show in NJ/PA. Too cold and such risk with snow cancellation. And yes, if you cancel your show you still have expenses to cover. My hat is off to them for even trying!
By the way, have you attended Bob Cole's shows in NJ? He does a nice job. You might enjoy going there.

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 03:21 PM
Have you really checked the mileage? You might be surprised. And certainly there are other venues. Frankly, you probably couldn't pay me enough to run a winter show in NJ/PA. Too cold and such risk with snow cancellation. And yes, if you cancel your show you still have expenses to cover. My hat is off to them for even trying!
By the way, have you attended Bob Cole's shows in NJ? He does a nice job. You might enjoy going there.

I checked Dream Park to a bunch of venues, less than 90 miles. That's why they built the Dream Park where they did, close proximity/central location. I didn't check Bucks Co. HP or NJHP or anything else. But trust me that when the venue in Norristown has the dates, that crosses out any close South Jersey and Chester County venues.

Where are Bob Cole's shows?

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 03:50 PM
Hillsborough, NJ, Hidden River Farm.
As I mentioned earlier, the Dream Park is quite a new venue. I remember when the Kentuck Horse Park started there were few shows there too. Slowly but surely, many relocated. A smart show manager knows that if a better venue will bring more entries and the numbers work they are smart to move their show there. You know, nobody really WANTS to run a crappy horse show. Bob is smart to get his foot in the door and run unrecognized shows there. If they are good shows and they get the numbers, date swaps can happen, etc. Once the dog shows and alpaca shows get the dates, don't think they will easily evict them to give the dates to a horse show. We may see it as a higher level of use, but a government run venue doesn't really care in most cases. And you would think that an event that goes, say 4 days, as opposed to a one or two day dog show would get precidence. Not always the case. And I can almost bet you they get more spectators for a dog show than for a horse show;-)
Best thing to do is to get some shows started there even if the are unrec. or C's. They can always be upgraded down the road if it will work. Once they start pulling entries from the venues that you describe as inferior, you might be surprised what can happen. Sometimes things just take a little time and you go in slowly instead of screaming and swinging a machete.

S A McKee
Nov. 22, 2011, 03:53 PM
OK. I am willing to learn.

What is the real world difference between the licensee contracting with a 3rd party and with the dates being sold/leased -- whatever terminology you want to use?

I.e. How are You so sure that Vicky and her family contracted to have the Snowbird shows managed, as opposed to selling their dates?

Is this a distinction without a difference? Are we talking semantics here?

S A McKee: I am also interested in these "legal challenges" that the Mileage Rule has been confronted with. Has the USEF/USHJA been taken to court over the mileage rule? If so, I think that it would be Federal Court since the issues here are Monopoly and Restraint on Interstate Commerce. Can you please point me to the rulings which support your statement that "the mileage rule has withstood legal challenges?"

Statements such as yours always pique my interest and so I will invariably ask a follow up question to ascertain the validity or existence of the outcome. It would help if you would include such information in your post when you first make the statement.

Thanks!

I'll make it really clear so that you can understand.

If you sell the date then you aren't the licensee name.The person who bought the date now owns the license and their name is listed as the licensee.
Many shows hire a third party to run the show. As examples, Devon and the Hampton Classic hire managers.
Please take a look at the USEF competition calendar for clarification. If you'd bother to do that you'd see who the licensee is for those shows,the name of the contact person and the show manager.
Hiring a 3rd party to run a show is not leasing your date. I'm not even sure that USEF allows leasing dates.

The challenge to USEF over the mileage rule has been discussed on this forum. I'm not doing your research for you.
We all know you are a lawyer, you tell us that all the time.
You should be able to do your own research on the USEF case over mileage rules.I'll even give you a hint. Florida.

And as to your comment that C and B shows are dead I invite to read carefully posts about those shows.
Depending on the area you are in they are alive and dominating the available shows.
Zone 2 is the largest zone.Once more, there are more C and B shows than A or AA shows in Zone 1 and Zone 2.BUT each zone is different.
Because of this there are more opportunities for exhibitors to choose what show they want to go to because the mileage rule is much lower. They are not trapped into the problem that some on this thread have complained about,being stuck with only one show to go to.

Although you want to play thread police and dismiss the discussion of C and B shows they are a viable way to create more choices for exhibitors and for new shows to be created without the licensee facing going broke after the first show.

I'm not sure you understand that C and B shows can and do offer all USEF and USHJA National and Zone divisions.
The bulk of exhibitors are not trying to win a HOTY award,they want to win Zone points or qualify for Zones. For the zone divisions you get the same amount of points at a one day C show as you do at a multi day A or AA show. You know that, right?

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 03:59 PM
Hillsborough NJ appears to be close to 2 hours from Philadelphia? That's a pretty far hike for me when I have really excellent shows closer (Princeton shows aren't close, but they're closer, and they're NICE and then, of course Duncraven has great shows). I think, actually, even Snowbird is closer to me than that. That's just really far to go for any old rated show. I'd rather be at the Dream Park ;)

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 04:38 PM
No, I am from NJ, went to school in Phila. Closer to you than Snowbird. And its not just any old rated show. Nice show. Don't know what part of Phila you are in, exactly. I am sure Andrew's shows are nice. And I have judged Duncraven, so I know that is nice as well. Be patient on Dream Park, somebody will most likely move there.

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 04:44 PM
Correction, Bob's shows are in Neshanic Station, near Flemington.

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 04:58 PM
I'll have to mapquest it from the barn. Just looking at the map, it looks far. Good to know it's out there.

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 05:00 PM
Anything that's not Devon is just a rated show to me. I'm highly biased ;)

Lord Helpus
Nov. 22, 2011, 05:08 PM
Dear Chunky (did I spell that right?)

First you misquoted me on this thread, and now you are misquoting me and falsely representing what I said in a PM.

I never said, nor inferred, that I was too good for B or C shows. I said I was moving back to the A/O division and B and C shows do not offer a 3'6" A/O division.

I do not know why I need to explain things to you, but I will.

My horse (btw, he is not a European import, fresh from the jumper ring over there) was purchased when he was 6 months old. I wanted him as my ammie horse. However, he wanted to be a jumper and had the scope to be a jumper, so I let him become a jumper.

That left me with the same show bills, but without a horse to ride, so, after several years of watching him jump (I am too old to switch rings. I do not do jumpers), I decided to turn him into the hunter I had always wanted.

Problem is, he jumps like puke at 3' and 3'3". He doesn't try, he canters over the jumps, he doesn't use his back. He, in a word, is an awful 3' horse.

When the jumps get to 3'6" he starts to actually jump the jump. That is where he becomes competitive. So, I am going to ride in the division where my horse takes me. And it is not a division offered at C shows. At the unrecognized shows here, nothing over 2'9" filled, even though they offered classes with 3'6" heights.

Thus my conundrum.

But, enough about my horse. I did not start this thread to talk about my horse or what divisions I want to go in. I will not be replying to anymore of your PM's since you (1) do not respect the PRIVATE part of a PM, and (2) you misrepresent my words when you do discuss the contents of a PRIVATE message.

How bout we just agree to disagree and not make this thread a pissing contest. There are other people who want to discuss real issues.

There. Clear?

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 05:52 PM
Yup, I am just a horrible person. Seems like you just gave out all info that you wrote to me, Didn't realize that what you wrote was top secret classified data. And you are the one who started been pming me. I have no secrets :-) In fact I usually keep my pm box full intentionally so I don't have to hear it. Sorry,but none of it looked too personal to me. My bad. Again I beg to differ about no 3'6" divisions at C shows. It is up to management to offer what they like. I guarantee that when I was an amateur that I rode in 3'6" A/O classes at C shows.
A rated C show usually offers 3'6". I know that NCHJA has shows that they call C shows, but they are not rated and that is not what we are talking about here.
I did not say "too good" for C shows. I said above that level. I do not interpret it as you do. There you are misquoting me. But I certainly am not getting my panties in a a wad over it...this thread has just been good entertainment for me while sick with a miserable cold.
There have actually been some very good ideas, suggestions, and discussions, etc. resulting from this thread.
A quick look in your area shows about 5 A rated shows in Raleigh this winter (Dec-March) That is not too bad, more than I expected. Don't know how often you like to show, but that would be a pretty good number for me! I have no agenda with you. I just feel that sometimes you go off half cocked without knowing the history of how things have evolved in the industry and for instance that the mileage rule has gone through the courts and been debated ad nauseum. Many posters seem to know what has transired over the years and have interesting things to say regarding same. The mileage rule isn't going anywher fast. But it may be able to get tweaked to work better for different Zones.

For the record, since most posters on COTH appear to be amateurs that gang together to dump on the nasty conspiratorial nature of horse show management and those criminal trainers that rip them off, I enjoy presenting some of those issues from another point of view. Makes for fun discourse. Believe me, none of this raises my blood pressure.
Sorry that I don't always agree with you. Next time just let me know in advance what my opinion is supposed to be ;-)

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 06:43 PM
Hey, by the way Lordy I wonder if you can educate me. I would have sent this by pm but was instructed not to. Can you fill me in? What is an AHSA "S" steward?

ynl063w
Nov. 22, 2011, 08:28 PM
Again I beg to differ about no 3'6" divisions at C shows. It is up to management to offer what they like. I guarantee that when I was an amateur that I rode in 3'6" A/O classes at C shows.
A rated C show usually offers 3'6".

I don't know how long it's been since you showed as an amateur, but nationally rated divisions (A/Os at both heights, ponies, open divisions) are not offered at anything but A rated shows in my area (PA). Since it seems as though B and C shows don't even EXIST in many other areas, my sympathy is with Lord Helpus on this one.

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 08:47 PM
I don't show in them but I do judge them. A quick look at the few C shows( in NC Raleigh area) appear to offer them, and the winter A shows in Raleigh offer and fill both a 3'3" division and 3'6" A/O. It is also true that the 3'3" A/O and the 3'6" A/O can be combined. I do know that they hold a 3'6" AO at the Zone 2 Finals, so I guess somebody has it. Maybe they will pick up on the 3'3" division which has been mega popular and then anybody that wants to jump the 3'6" can do it.

AliCat
Nov. 22, 2011, 08:56 PM
I'll have to mapquest it from the barn. Just looking at the map, it looks far. Good to know it's out there.

It would probably take you longer to get to Bobs because Duncraven and Princeton are pretty close to 95, making it easy to get to them from Philly.

I would guess that it would take you about the same amount of time to get to Hidden River that it takes to get to Briarwood. Hidden River is on the opposite side of 202, but further from the highway. HR is only a few miles from the Chapot's if you have ever been there.

It is for sure closer than Snowbird.

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:03 PM
I don't know how long it's been since you showed as an amateur, but nationally rated divisions (A/Os at both heights, ponies, open divisions) are not offered at anything but A rated shows in my area (PA). Since it seems as though B and C shows don't even EXIST in many other areas, my sympathy is with Lord Helpus on this one.

Okay YN, I didn't want to doubt you, but after running a USEF search of all C and B rated show in PA between Dec and May of 2011 I can't find one show that DID NOT offer the 3'3" and 3'6" A/O division. I even pulled up a number of their prize lists to be sure it was true.

ynl063w
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:12 PM
I don't show in them but I do judge them. A quick look at the few C shows( in NC Raleigh area) appear to offer them, and the winter A shows in Raleigh offer and fill both a 3'3" division and 3'6" A/O. It is also true that the 3'3" A/O and the 3'6" A/O can be combined. I do know that they hold a 3'6" AO at the Zone 2 Finals, so I guess somebody has it. Maybe they will pick up on the 3'3" division which has been mega popular and then anybody that wants to jump the 3'6" can do it.

The fact that the winter A shows offer and fill both A/O heights does nothing to bolster your claim that B and C shows offer (and fill) the divisions, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. Ditto for the fact that Zone 2 Finals includes A/Os (I think Junior Hunters are included too, but those aren't offered at B and C shows around here either) - the points earned by those competitors come from A shows, not B and C shows (as noted previously, this is true in my area of Zone 2; I admit I don't know about the B and C shows in NY and NJ, so I could be mistaken here). As far as combining divisions, it's not unheard of at the winter A shows here to see the Junior Hunters and A/Os combined due to lack of entries. But again, those divisions are not even offered at B and C shows around here.

And I apologize, I thought you said that you showed as an amateur in the 3'6" A/Os at C shows. Oh wait, I just double checked, and you did say that.

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:27 PM
B and C shows in PA that offered 3'3" and 3'6" A/O between Dec and May 2011
Halcyon
Heritage
Worcester
ML King
Wyndsor
Swan Lake
Kimberton
maybe more.
My point is that they are offered and seem to run, perhaps they are combined most of the time. People keep telling me that there are no C and B shows where you can jump 3'6"
The start of this thread ( as convoluted as it has gotten.) was that we need to have the mileage rule repealed so that there will be more A shows because they are the only ones where you can jump higher than 3'. I contend that is not really true.

ynl063w
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:29 PM
Okay YN, I didn't want to doubt you, but after running a USEF search of all C and B rated show in PA between Dec and May of 2011 I can't find one show that DID NOT offer the 3'3" and 3'6" A/O division. I even pulled up a number of their prize lists to be sure it was true.

That's interesting - which shows are they? I admit, I have been referring only to the shows that are offered in SE PA, and PA is a big state, so it could very well be different in other parts of the state.

Can you tell if the divisions actually fill and run at those shows? Because if they don't, that does nothing for people in Lord Helpus' position.

Editing because I just saw your post above - I have never seen an A/O division run (or even offered - and I do look at many of the prize lists) at Our Farm except at an A show. Are you talking about 2010 or 2011? I could be wrong here though.

chunky munky
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:33 PM
The fact that the winter A shows offer and fill both A/O heights does nothing to bolster your claim that B and C shows offer (and fill) the divisions, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. Ditto for the fact that Zone 2 Finals includes A/Os (I think Junior Hunters are included too, but those aren't offered at B and C shows around here either) - the points earned by those competitors come from A shows, not B and C shows (as noted previously, this is true in my area of Zone 2; I admit I don't know about the B and C shows in NY and NJ, so I could be mistaken here). As far as combining divisions, it's not unheard of at the winter A shows here to see the Junior Hunters and A/Os combined due to lack of entries. But again, those divisions are not even offered at B and C shows around here.

And I apologize, I thought you said that you showed as an amateur in the 3'6" A/Os at C shows. Oh wait, I just double checked, and you did say that.

OP is from NC, says nowhere to jump 3'6". I did show in 3'6" at C shows when I was an amateur. And I have more recently judged them.

ynl063w
Nov. 22, 2011, 09:47 PM
B and C shows in PA that offered 3'3" and 3'6" A/O between Dec and May 2011
Halcyon
Heritage
Worcester
ML King
Wyndsor
Swan Lake
Kimberton
maybe more.
My point is that they are offered and seem to run, perhaps they are combined most of the time. People keep telling me that there are no C and B shows where you can jump 3'6"
The start of this thread ( as convoluted as it has gotten.) was that we need to have the mileage rule repealed so that there will be more A shows because they are the only ones where you can jump higher than 3'. I contend that is not really true.

I just looked at a prize list for an upcoming B show at Our Farm, and you are right - they are offering the A/Os at both heights as well as Junior Hunters. I'm guessing that the addition of the lower A/O height brings in enough entries that even if entries are exceedingly low for all three divisions, they can combine what they have to run it. Still no Pony Hunters or open divisions though. That's good to know - thanks for pointing that out!

Is Wyndsor Farm actually running shows anymore, or did they pull an Ashley Meadows and disappear off the calendar while holding their dates hostage? I'm clearly way more out of the loop than I thought!

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 10:15 PM
I now know where Bob's is! That jogged my memory. That is a nice place!!!

I can't think of any (many) B and C shows in south/central NJ other than Woodedge. In PA the only ones I can think of below Pennsyltuckey are a couple of one days at Our Farm and Fox Heath's yearly show (loff loff loff them! I love going there). So those and a couple at Woodedge before the summer runs kick in. B and C rated shows are rare up here. Juniors and AOs nearly always coming. Ponies combine sections. I don't know about low AOs vs highs. Some of the places mentioned (halyson etc.) Are a hike and a half from philly and worse from chester county which is the equine hub. Places like fair hill area etc. Are easier to get to than parts of puppymill pa.

vxf111
Nov. 22, 2011, 10:18 PM
I think Wydsor is having shows. That's a nice place to show in the winter. Might work for me!

Was Kimberton rated?! Am I thinking of the right show? At ludwig's corner show grounds?!

AliCat
Nov. 22, 2011, 10:26 PM
I think Wydsor is having shows. That's a nice place to show in the winter. Might work for me!

Was Kimberton rated?! Am I thinking of the right show? At ludwig's corner show grounds?!

Apparently these are a list of shows that Katie has ties to:
http://www.briarwood-farm.com/Horse_Shows_FXI2.html

Lord Helpus
Nov. 22, 2011, 11:26 PM
OP is from NC, says nowhere to jump 3'6". I did show in 3'6" at C shows when I was an amateur. And I have more recently judged them.


I am going to regret wading back in here, but Chunky keeps saying things as if they are true. In this case, she is wrong. Plain wrong.

Triangle Farms runs the C show circuit in Raleigh and Greensboro. They know their market and offer classes that fill.

Here is the time table/prize list for their recent indoor multi day, multi ring C show in Raleigh. This is their year end finals show and contains all the divisions they run during the year. (Schedule is on P.6 of 8)
http://www.nchja.com/cmedals/TFNovCPrizeList.pdf

And here are the divisions offered by BRHJA C shows during the 2011 show year. (scroll down) (Shows only have to hold 50% of these divisions and I have heard that the working division is rarely, if ever, offered.)
http://www.brhja.com/BRHJASanctioningApplication2012.pdf

Back to your regularly scheduled discussion about the Mileage Rule. I'm off to join friends and celebrate Thanksgiving -- Hope everyone has a happy one!

jonesy
Nov. 23, 2011, 01:38 PM
I think I need some advil to follow the back and forth exchanges from the same few folks about this mileage rule.

Truth be said, Chunk Monk you make your living off of judging horse shows and running them so you have your views. Some of which appear jaded and clouded. You speak as if you have all the facts and knowledge, and knowing who you are, you are overstating yourself, IMHO.

Then there is the exhibitor with one or two horses that just wants to remember what it was like to show in the 3'6" division like the good ole' days but can't do so because the cost to get to an AA show is just cost prohibitive to enjoy being at the show. In some instances only to find that the division didn't even fill. Forget trying to qualify for anything. Then there is the lawyer, or a few of them, with excellent points on monopolies and fairness, neither of which the usef or ushja care about.

I liked it better when horse shows were a free for all. Everyone got a date or fought for the ones available and if they ran the better show, with the better prizes, they got the good entries. Competition among show managers is healthy and keeps everyone on their toes. The way it is done now, the show managers know they are protected, get complacent, don't care about exhibitor happiness, and offer less and less for the money.

At Atlanta last weekend in zone final classes, if you won the amatuer owner class or adult hunter you got somewhere between $30.00 and $55.00 dollars. The division cost more than you could recover if you won all 5 classes.

But I highly doubt that anyone or any group can do enough to chip away at the mileage rule. There are bigger forces in play ensuring nothing changes in our lifetime.

chunky munky
Nov. 23, 2011, 04:32 PM
Hi Jonesy, I do not predominately make a living from either. It is just part of my life. And knowing who you are I will take your slighting opinion of me as a compliment;-)

chunky munky
Nov. 24, 2011, 06:13 PM
I am going to regret wading back in here, but Chunky keeps saying things as if they are true. In this case, she is wrong. Plain wrong.

Triangle Farms runs the C show circuit in Raleigh and Greensboro. They know their market and offer classes that fill.

Here is the time table/prize list for their recent indoor multi day, multi ring C show in Raleigh. This is their year end finals show and contains all the divisions they run during the year. (Schedule is on P.6 of 8)
http://www.nchja.com/cmedals/TFNovCPrizeList.pdf

And here are the divisions offered by BRHJA C shows during the 2011 show year. (scroll down) (Shows only have to hold 50% of these divisions and I have heard that the working division is rarely, if ever, offered.)
http://www.brhja.com/BRHJASanctioningApplication2012.pdf

Back to your regularly scheduled discussion about the Mileage Rule. I'm off to join friends and celebrate Thanksgiving -- Hope everyone has a happy one!


Now sufficiently full of turkey ( content with tryptophene) I feel it is time to address that these shows are NOT USEF shows. They are unrecognized shows. So I am not "plain wrong" The NCHJA has a class of shows that they call C shows, but have nothing to do with the USEF. Triangle does generally run a few USEF rated C shows in Raleigh.
However, I am not too surprised that this information is vague to the OP, when one is not a member of the USEF or the USHJA (members are also searchable on the USEF website) You can access the full calendar with search engine to find all recognized shows of any rating in your area. The BRHJA shows have never been USEF shows. I am sure they are nice shows, but not recognized.

Beenthere
Nov. 24, 2011, 06:25 PM
Chunky Monkey, you will soon find out in due time that according to the USEF you don't need to be a member of USEF and USHJA until such time you want a benefit in your favor and then you call there, get your membership and then get your old points made into good ones and go qualify for the shows you want. So who cares if the OP is a member of either organization. She can check the calendar like anyone else. I think her point was that if the mileage rule were taken away there would be more opportunities for USEF recognized shows that she might want to attend if they hold and fill 3'6" classes.

Regardless, it is beating a dead horse. The mileage rule is here to stay and no one is changing anything, petition filled or not.

War Admiral
Nov. 24, 2011, 07:46 PM
Regardless, it is beating a dead horse. The mileage rule is here to stay and no one is changing anything, petition filled or not.

You don't think an entire roomful of Olympic jumping hopefuls all nodding their heads and telling USEF/USHJA it needs to go might have some influence? Bill Moron-y looked and sounded pretty impotent at that point in the Open Jumper Forum proceedings, and did NOT provide an effective counter.

I'm thinking if the ULR's are backing a change in the mileage rule, this might be the ONE opportunity we may ever have to get it changed.

chunky munky
Nov. 24, 2011, 07:48 PM
I just find it odd that one that has become an activist against the USEF/USHJA and started Bulletin Boards, and multiple COTH threads and refers to the downtrodden as "US" is not listed as a member, and descibes self as a steward. Sorry, but I find this somewhat disturbing.
The other part you missed is that there ARE shows in her area that are recognized that hold and fill 3'6" classes. She is confused by the NCHJA C shows that are not USEF affiliated. Yes she can check the calendar like everybody else, but it seemed to take an instructional from several of posters to explain how to use it.
And yes the mileage rule will stay, but updating and tweaking is not out of the question. To think otherwise is to throw your hands up and say " I am a victim." Mileage rules are different not only in Zones, but also within calendar dates within Zones.
And Donkman, weare not talking about points. This is only about horse show dates.

chunky munky
Nov. 24, 2011, 07:52 PM
You don't think an entire roomful of Olympic jumping hopefuls all nodding their heads and telling USEF/USHJA it needs to go might have some influence? Bill Moron-y looked and sounded pretty impotent at that point in the Open Jumper Forum proceedings, and did NOT provide an effective counter.

I'm thinking if the ULR's are backing a change in the mileage rule, this might be the ONE opportunity we may ever have to get it changed.

Reality is, the Open Jumper forums do not effect the two ring AA Hunter horse show. What they want and need is a whole different kettle of fish.

Beenthere
Nov. 24, 2011, 08:02 PM
Chunky Monkey, its abundantly clear you have a personal issue with LH but that should be saved for elsewhere. I don't think you need to beat on her and belabor your point. I was referring to your comment that LH was not a member. I too know who LH is and yes once was a steward and choose to let that go. I don't blame her for taking on the usef/ushja member or not. People should boycott those organizations if the organizations are not doing their stated jobs.

So there are shows in NC. Let's get beyond that and get back to the mileage rule. This forum is suppose to be for people to share their points of view that some may or may not agree with. In this instance we see you don't agree entirely with removing it and we understand your views on that point. They are well-stated. I think the OP wants to hear about the thoughts of those that want it to go.

chunky munky
Nov. 24, 2011, 08:57 PM
I actually don't have any personal issue with LH, except she chooses to not look at facts and spew things about her area (Zone 3 ) that are not true. Never met her, wouldn't know her if she walked in my living room
In this thread she has claimed that she is a AHSA S steward, which is obviously untrue, and become a rouser to change the USEF/USHJA regulations ands even started a bulletin board for adult riders to rally against the USEF/USHJA. When you are not even a member, it is a little odd. Why would one even care so much? Sounds like someone very bored at home.
And yes, perhaps the OP only wants to hear from those that want the mileage rule to go...but that is not what an open BB is. Sorry to have an opinion that doesn't just high five you all and support your aggressive action against the rule, which no supporter of the OP will ever organize, because in reality, it doesn't affect them enough. I just want you to see that some of the heaviest posters here regarding the operations of the USEF/USHJA may not even be members of this organization. That doesn't fly. The operations truly do not effect then in any way. This falls into the "its all about me" category, and sorry, but that is close to a crazy cat lady.

Beenthere
Nov. 24, 2011, 09:27 PM
Chunky Monkey I think you owe LH an apology because I can see on usef.org that she is in fact active and has many horses registered with usef and ushja. That makes a member to me. The steward time is when it was the AHSA and under a maiden name. Just want to be sure that is clear.

S A McKee
Nov. 24, 2011, 09:29 PM
Out of curiosity, I would like to know the affiliation of folks posting on this thread. Who owns dates and runs rated shows and who is a competitor. I'm just a competitor.

I've been traveling and didn't see this post till today.

My first response would be that it's none of your business.
But it being a Holiday and all I'll reply.

I am involved in running C B and A shows.
I am also an exhibitor and show both within Zone 2 and also on the east coast from MA to SC.

I've been involved in horse sports for a really long time. Probably longer than most ( and even longer than the venerable LH).;)

chunky munky
Nov. 24, 2011, 09:42 PM
I've been traveling and didn't see this post till today.

My first response would be that it's none of your business.
But it being a Holiday and all I'll reply.

I am involved in running C B and A shows.
I am also an exhibitor and show both within Zone 2 and also on the east coast from MA to SC.

I've been involved in horse sports for a really long time. Probably longer than most ( and even longer than the venerable LH).;)

S A McKee is my new BFF:-)

chunky munky
Nov. 24, 2011, 09:55 PM
Chunky Monkey I think you owe LH an apology because I can see on usef.org that she is in fact active and has many horses registered with usef and ushja. That makes a member to me. The steward time is when it was the AHSA and under a maiden name. Just want to be sure that is clear.

Name: Pamela Hall Mahoney
USEF says inactve. I stand to be corrected. And will certainly appologize if I have made an error.

Beenthere
Nov. 24, 2011, 10:03 PM
CM it seems inappropriate to out someone on a board but since you have chosen to do so, here you go with a little crow pie as well. If you look at the ZIP code for the active person you would see its very active. Maybe if you spelled the name right it would have come up. Now you can take the name and see the horses registered too.

ID Name Zip Amateur Status
4006624 MAHONY, PAMELA 28388 Amateur(Active)
29688 MAHONY, PAMELA HALL 97140 No Status(Inactive)

chunky munky
Nov. 24, 2011, 10:16 PM
As i said, I will absolutely apologize when I am incorrect. But I will say that most people keep their original # if they are members. As far as outing somebody, she did that on her own when starting her bulletin board. I will not take resonsibility for that.

Lord Helpus
Nov. 25, 2011, 10:18 AM
As i said, I will absolutely apologize when I am incorrect. But I will say that most people keep their original # if they are members. As far as outing somebody, she did that on her own when starting her bulletin board. I will not take resonsibility for that.

Well, Ellen Shevella (Since your name is in your Signature line)

You have said that you will apologize.

I'm waiting.

It would also be classy of you to edit your threads above to indicate that you were incorrect and that, at all times pertinent, I have been a member of the AHSA, then the USEF/USHJA.

Yes, I was a Steward in the 1980's. I let my license lapse after I became a busy litigation attorney, because I did not know 6 months in advance, whether I would be free to officiate on any given weekend. When I was licensed, I stewarded at such shows as Menlo Circus Club, Junior Grand National, Montery Classic, and The Southamption Classic Horse Show (among others).

When I had my neck surgeries and was told I would never ride again, I let my membership lapse. I rejoined as soon as I bought another horse; by then I was married and, in the name and new address confusion, I was added as a new member with a new number. Which you would have found, had you cared enough to find out how to spell my name.

There. Does that explain everything you need to know before you apologize and edit your posts?

Please, let's let this thread die.

Ruby G. Weber
Nov. 25, 2011, 10:55 AM
Now ladies how about burying the hatchet and returning to the subject matter.

In my oh so very humble opinion the mileage rule does call for modernizing. I don't think going from mileage regulation as we know it to an absolute free for all is the answer. On the other hand competition is healthy. It is from that point of view that I would encourage reworking the current rules. I think it far better to let the exhibitors do the culling rather than USHJA mandate show standards.

Maybe one solution is to encourage more not for profit shows/charity shows like Menlo and Upperville.

vxf111
Nov. 25, 2011, 01:20 PM
I've been traveling and didn't see this post till today.

My first response would be that it's none of your business.
But it being a Holiday and all I'll reply.

I am involved in running C B and A shows.
I am also an exhibitor and show both within Zone 2 and also on the east coast from MA to SC.

I've been involved in horse sports for a really long time. Probably longer than most ( and even longer than the venerable LH).;)

I really didn't think anyone would interpret the request as rude (and, since it's completely voluntary you certainly didn't need to reply if you felt it was). Look, it's clear that the biggest benefactor of the mileage rule are people who current hold dates. No two ways around that. So I was curious to see if the vocal supporters on this thread included anyone who did NOT fall into this group. Small sample size, but so far the vocal supporters of the mileage rule on this thread ARE people who run shows and hold dates. Look, are we kidding ourselves? The rule mainly benefits people who run shows. It benefits competitors only to the extent that you're worried about competitor spread. otherwise, the rule disadvantages competitors. Is that any secret? All I was curious about was poster POV. I didn't ask anyone to identify themselves by name, state the dates the hold or the names of their show, etc. It's like a discussion on the amateur rule, asking whether posters are amateurs or not. I find it REALLY strange that someone would be defensive about saying whether they run shows or not. It's public knowledge, isn't it? Or why we have a pissing context about who is the ooooolllldddeeesttt and has been around the most. That, I am just confused about.

Lucassb
Nov. 25, 2011, 03:15 PM
I really didn't think anyone would interpret the request as rude (and, since it's completely voluntary you certainly didn't need to reply if you felt it was). Look, it's clear that the biggest benefactor of the mileage rule are people who current hold dates. No two ways around that. So I was curious to see if the vocal supporters on this thread included anyone who did NOT fall into this group. Small sample size, but so far the vocal supporters of the mileage rule on this thread ARE people who run shows and hold dates. Look, are we kidding ourselves? The rule mainly benefits people who run shows. It benefits competitors only to the extent that you're worried about competitor spread. otherwise, the rule disadvantages competitors. Is that any secret? All I was curious about was poster POV. I didn't ask anyone to identify themselves by name, state the dates the hold or the names of their show, etc. It's like a discussion on the amateur rule, asking whether posters are amateurs or not. I find it REALLY strange that someone would be defensive about saying whether they run shows or not. It's public knowledge, isn't it? Or why we have a pissing context about who is the ooooolllldddeeesttt and has been around the most. That, I am just confused about.

Way back when, I heard the mileage rule proposed as an incentive - to show management, obviously - to encourage investment in infrastructure to hold top rated shows.

Obviously things like footing, stabling etc are all costly to build and maintain, and it made sense to me that the association would take actions to encourage that sort of investment as part of their mission to support competitive opportunities for the membership. Certainly some assurance of a captive audience, without the threat posed by viable alternative shows/venues in a particular market would help someone justify an investment in a facility such as the one at WEF.

That said, at this point I do think that the mileage rule has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had in the development of venues for our sport, and now functions to the detriment of competitors/USEF members for the most part. I don't think it will ever be completely abandoned and since I try to embrace reality, I guess my inclination is to look at other ways to address what I see as the negative impacts of date protection; namely, poor service quality, exorbitant costs to exhibitors, etc. I do personally believe that there are ways to address those concerns absent the dissolution of the mileage rule... thus my earlier posts, pages ago, about putting some teeth into the exhibitor evaluation process.

That suggestion was lauded by some, and dismissed out of hand by the OP. Hey, I don't propose it as a total solution but just another way of viewing/attacking the problem that may offer a better percentage chance of success than eliminating the very well entrenched mileage rule. More than one way to skin a cat, and all that.

For the record I am now "just" an exhibitor, or rather I should say a USEF member (since I chose not to show at all last year, having grown disgusted with the entire process, LOL.) In years past, I have been involved with the AHSA/Fed as a committee member and volunteer... on the ill-fated "Sunshine Task Force" established by Alan Balch just before he was forced out. So my bias(es) should be clear!

Lord Helpus
Nov. 25, 2011, 03:52 PM
Sorry LucasB,

I guess I did (sound like) I dismissed your suggeston out of hand. In retrospect, I am sorry and I apologize for my post. I do think that should be one leg of a multifaceted approach, but not the only one. And I don't think you meant it to be the only one. I had my dander up at the time and my fingers spoke before my brain.

I think your suggestion is a good one, IF TPTB actually read and take the exhibitors' comments to heart. That is a step I worry about.

On a number of fronts I have become cynical about the USHJA's handling of issues which pit the general population of members v. the entrenched "old guard" network. So far, I have yet to see an example which comes out in favor of the "average member".

For example: When one poster said that she thought that selling dates was illegal, I went to the rulebook and checked. She was half right. It is illegal UNLESS the USHJA approves it.

Well, given the prevalence of dates that have been taken over by manager's and are being run under the names of people/farms/management groups which no longer exist, it appears that the USHJA has been "approving" a whole lot of date sales. I wonder if they have actually not approved any - or, if so, what the ratio of approval to disproval is?

I would be very proud of my Association of it actually and honestly examined the pros and cons of each application and only approved the transfer of dates (without the date becoming available to the general public) in a small number of extraordinary circumstances.

Perhaps a representative of the USHJA will be willing to divulge this information?

S A McKee
Nov. 25, 2011, 04:42 PM
Sorry LucasB,

For example: When one poster said that she thought that selling dates was illegal, I went to the rulebook and checked. She was half right. It is illegal UNLESS the USHJA approves it.

Well, given the prevalence of dates that have been taken over by manager's and are being run under the names of people/farms/management groups which no longer exist, it appears that the USHJA has been "approving" a whole lot of date sales. I wonder if they have actually not approved any - or, if so, what the ratio of approval to disproval is?

I would be very proud of my Association of it actually and honestly examined the pros and cons of each application and only approved the transfer of dates (without the date becoming available to the general public) in a small number of extraordinary circumstances.

Perhaps a representative of the USHJA will be willing to divulge this information?

You'd be wrong ( again )
Transfer of dates ( sales ) is approved by USEF not ushja
Approval of a request for a license is approved by USEF not ushja

S A McKee
Nov. 25, 2011, 04:45 PM
I really didn't think anyone would interpret the request as rude (and, since it's completely voluntary you certainly didn't need to reply if you felt it was). Look, it's clear that the biggest benefactor of the mileage rule are people who current hold dates. No two ways around that. So I was curious to see if the vocal supporters on this thread included anyone who did NOT fall into this group. Small sample size, but so far the vocal supporters of the mileage rule on this thread ARE people who run shows and hold dates. Look, are we kidding ourselves? The rule mainly benefits people who run shows. It benefits competitors only to the extent that you're worried about competitor spread. otherwise, the rule disadvantages competitors. Is that any secret? All I was curious about was poster POV. I didn't ask anyone to identify themselves by name, state the dates the hold or the names of their show, etc. It's like a discussion on the amateur rule, asking whether posters are amateurs or not. I find it REALLY strange that someone would be defensive about saying whether they run shows or not. It's public knowledge, isn't it? Or why we have a pissing context about who is the ooooolllldddeeesttt and has been around the most. That, I am just confused about.

Umm.You asked about backgrounds. I replied.
If you didn't like the answer TDB.
Still think it was rude but that's just my opinion.

Lord Helpus
Nov. 25, 2011, 04:54 PM
You'd be wrong ( again )
Transfer of dates ( sales ) is approved by USEF not ushja
Approval of a request for a license is approved by USEF not ushja

Oops! Sorry. Meant USEF, of course.

Perhaps it is nap time after I feed horses.

vxf111
Nov. 25, 2011, 05:00 PM
Umm.You asked about backgrounds. I replied.
If you didn't like the answer TDB.
Still think it was rude but that's just my opinion.

I'm not understanding why it's rude (to ask about financial basis from folks arguing in favor of an anticompetitive rule) especially when the information is publicly available. Are you offended generally when people ask you what you do for a living? I'm not, but we all have different tolerances. I appreciate the answer and apologize if I offended. I truly did not perceive it as an intrusive/rude question.

Lucassb
Nov. 25, 2011, 07:30 PM
Sorry LucasB,

I guess I did (sound like) I dismissed your suggeston out of hand. In retrospect, I am sorry and I apologize for my post. I do think that should be one leg of a multifaceted approach, but not the only one. And I don't think you meant it to be the only one. I had my dander up at the time and my fingers spoke before my brain.

I think your suggestion is a good one, IF TPTB actually read and take the exhibitors' comments to heart. That is a step I worry about.



No worries, apology accepted. ;)

I too worry about TPTB's receptivity to exhibitor concerns. I think that the approach I would advocate is to actually put some teeth into the survey process... so that there are real penalties for those who don't serve exhibitors well. Give those show managements some incentive to treat the customers better, and I think you would see some things improve.

I look at some of the better unrecognized circuits I've participated in, and how hard they've worked to earn and keep my business, and I see some models that seem to have merit. Those shows cater to their exhibitors because have to - and they get people like me coming back because they offer a good product at a fair price. Business 101, block & tackle stuff. It's not rocket science.

It is for SURE not the only option or by any means a comprehensive solution, but as you suggest, only a part of what might end up being a way to address what some of us consider major negatives in our sport - the high costs, less than adequate customer service, etc.

I am open to the idea that there might well be even better ideas out there that none of us have thought of yet, and that we might find other models - maybe from other sports or other business ventures far afield of horse showing - that might be even better solutions.

Give and Take
Nov. 28, 2011, 12:10 AM
I'm still in favor of being able to have A(+), B and C rated shows on the same weekend.

It would help to let the smaller A shows run a B or C ring on Fri/Sat/Sun and get more people involved in the sport, shopping at vendors on the show grounds, etc.

As much as it would be great to have a more meaningful eval system, i think that's pretty close to asking the fox to guard the hen house.

More people involved could turn into a more active grass roots membership.

Janet
Nov. 28, 2011, 07:27 AM
I'm still in favor of being able to have A(+), B and C rated shows on the same weekend.

It would help to let the smaller A shows run a B or C ring on Fri/Sat/Sun and get more people involved in the sport, shopping at vendors on the show grounds, etc.

can you explain how what you are proposing is different from the current system. Adult, Childrens, Pre-Green, etc are alraedy automatically C rated.

Are you suggesting having A rated Junior Hunters/Performance Hunters/etc. and C rated Junior Hunters/Performance Hunters/etc. on the same weekend at the same location?

chunky munky
Nov. 28, 2011, 10:13 PM
I am going to put myself up to ridicule again, which obviously does not bother me. I can tell you that the Bishop's at the Barracks ( wintershows in VA) invested heavily in fantastic footing, better lighting, replacing ring sideboards and I am sure more than I know. Their entries climbed this year and will continue. Management even said to me" We are not sure that it helped us, maybe just the way it is". ( Close quote) I so disagree. They showed they wanted to provide a great facility for their exhibitors. And they did it. And yes, I am sure that it drained the bank. But they never would have invested in that facility if there was no mileage protection. I am happy to see that protection will allow improvement to facilities. And there are more that fit into this category.

chunky munky
Nov. 28, 2011, 11:29 PM
Well, Ellen Shevella (Since your name is in your Signature line)

You have said that you will apologize.

I'm waiting.

It would also be classy of you to edit your threads above to indicate that you were incorrect and that, at all times pertinent, I have been a member of the AHSA, then the USEF/USHJA.

Yes, I was a Steward in the 1980's. I let my license lapse after I became a busy litigation attorney, because I did not know 6 months in advance, whether I would be free to officiate on any given weekend. When I was licensed, I stewarded at such shows as Menlo Circus Club, Junior Grand National, Montery Classic, and The Southamption Classic Horse Show (among others).

When I had my neck surgeries and was told I would never ride again, I let my membership lapse. I rejoined as soon as I bought another horse; by then I was married and, in the name and new address confusion, I was added as a new member with a new number. Which you would have found, had you cared enough to find out how to spell my name.

There. Does that explain everything you need to know before you apologize and edit your posts?

Please, let's let this thread die.

I apologize for outing you, but i thought you had outed yourself. Again, my bad. Dear, just get up to speed with the USEF/USHJA, and do not say that you are currently a steward when you are not active. Might be a good time for you to reactivate. They need stewards. You may be just what the USEF needs. Experienced and legal work. Perfect. Best to you.

Give and Take
Nov. 29, 2011, 12:58 AM
Janet - yes exactly. Out here we used to have clusters of show grounds but now are down to a single A show facility in the Portland area, 1 in Bend, 1 in WA and the rest in Canada.

They are building up another great facility in WA, but it's not ready for 500 horses.

There are many people who could and would do a weekend show, but can't do the full A+ week. Plus the trainers have a range of clients and can't be in 2 places at once. I'd even consider picking up a greenie if there were regular weekend shows it could go to, especially if I just had to bring it over to where my A+ jumper already is.

I think it would give some zones more flexibility in growing their customer base. The shows that don't need it, don't have to add those classes.