After attending the USHJA Annual Meeting, the author has some thoughts and observations to improve the process.

The U.S. Hunter Jumper Association has done a fabulous job with many of its programs. The Evening Of Equestrians is a memorable night filled full of wonderful awards that no one should miss, and many of the new programs are of great benefit to many of our members.

The rule-making program, however, leaves a great deal to be desired and must be changed if the USHJA is truly going to represent its members.

A few weeks ago we read Bill Moroney’s Between Rounds article “Change Is In The Air” saying that change is coming and requesting that members come to the annual meeting to be part of that change.

Just after that article was published, I wrote the article “The Procedures For Rule Changes Must Change.” I noted that the membership was not given ample time from the publication date of the 2010 Proposed Rule Changes until the time when a vote was taken on them. The majority simply doesn’t know what’s going on, which is not the way that a national affiliate should function.

When we got to the annual meeting, which was reported on in the Dec. 25 issue (p. 8), we learned that most of the rule changes about show ratings and mileage would be delayed until the mid-year meeting. They were discussed as a matter of information.

Personally, after thinking about it, I don’t understand why a B- or C-rated show should become an A-rated show. They are not, for the most part, A-rated shows, and to make them become A-rated shows the management is going to have to put a great deal more money into the show. These costs will then be passed on to the exhibitors in the form of higher entries and additional fees.

We are told that these additional standards are going to grow our sport. I don’t think that is an accurate statement. These standards may push some shows out of the system, but the shows that replace them in all likelihood will be more expensive models of the same show—except they will be called A-rated shows.

Are we being realistic here? Do we really think the grassroots members are going to come into a system that has much higher costs than the “unrated” shows that they are leaving?

Restructuring Our Sport

The “Hunter Restructuring” rules have taken a long time to be presented, but I think we are still a bit premature into making them rules. I hear many questions asked for which there is not yet a good answer. I offered several suggestions to change some of these rules, but they were not accepted by the Hunter Restructure Committee. Many people came up to me afterwards and said what good ideas they were.

Trainer Patty Heuckeroth was quoted as saying she supported the changes and said she would certainly consider entering individual regular working hunter classes. Let us look at the possibilities!

Patty was saying that she might want to put a second year green horse in some of the regular working hunter classes if he was going well. No one on the committee, or in the audience for that fact, seemed to know that you could already enter individual classes if you have already paid one A-rated division entry fee.

But going on from there, on the second day of the division you usually have the handy class or the stake. Are those the classes where  you would want to start your 3’9″ horse over 4′ to 4’6″? Or, do we think that you would have the new open hunter classes after the rated divisions? I don’t think so.

And speaking of the open hunter classes, they too are going to present some problems. The entry fees and prize money for these classes are going to be pegged to the height of the fences. Someone from the audience asked, “What happens when they are combined?” (Already a rule that most did not know about.) Well, everyone gets the higher prize money and thus the higher entry fee.

Is everyone going to be happy paying a higher entry fee for what is basically a schooling class?

A bigger problem to me is combining the green and regular conformation into one section with the second year and regular horses all jumping 3’9″. Additionally, there’s no provision for separating these horses if there are sufficient entries to do so.

Granted, there are not a lot of those horses around, but at some shows there are. What is wrong with having a rule that separates them if you have, say, four of each? This is how the pony rules were written.

I don’t understand why the regular horses are to jump 3’9″. If any of these horses are to go in a classic or derby are they then to jump 3’9″ or 4′? This situation creates more problems than it solves. Several professionals came to the meeting to talk about this subject, but the committee members just didn’t want to listen.

We Need To Vote

If you have a rule-making forum—such as the three that were held at the USHJA Annual Meeting encompassing general, hunter and jumper rule change proposals—you have to know how the membership feels about certain subjects. You usually hear from both sides of the question with the audience participation, but you don’t really know how everyone feels until you ask for a vote.

No votes were taken this year.

This is the beginning of the problem. I know that some committee members don’t like to take votes because some people feel that the committee proposing the rule change must go with the popular vote. But how do you know how the group feels if you don’t ask for a vote?

Another rule that many members may not know is if a Zone has a forum, the chairman must take minutes listing everyone present, what subjects were discussed and how the group voted. I follow this protocol and mail it in every time we have a Zone Forum.

I now find that the USHJA committee chairmen and the USHJA Board of Directors do not receive this information.

I took with me to the annual meeting more than 80 surveys from the National Hunter/Jumper Association, mostly on rule change questions. I had just recently held two Zone 3 Forums at the Maryland and Virginia conventions. We voted on many of the rule changes. What is the purpose of gathering all of this information if it’s not going to be distributed and used?

For instance, the rule allowing pony hunter riders to ride over larger fences than division rules permit in the USHJA Hunter Derby classes was turned down by a vast majority in every forum and survey. But the USHJA Pony Hunter Task Force very much endorsed this rule. Did anyone say that this was a huge conflict of interest for many of the task force members as they personally had riders who this rule would affect? This is a situation that needs to be addressed. This shouldn’t happen.

The USHJA does such a good job in so many areas. The rule making or changing process, however, is not one of them.

The membership needs more time to discuss and digest these many proposals. We need to be heard on these proposals before they are passed. There need to be more surveys and more votes taken.

We need a process that’s democratic in every way. We need more representation from the Zones on the USHJA Board of Directors. The Zone Committees are the only ones that are elected by the membership.

In one of the early morning meetings, the leader was trying to figure out what to call the group of people who were not at the top of the sport and who were not from the B- and C-rated shows. One wise person called out: “I think we’re the majority!”

What he did not say, though, was “The group that’s often not heard.”  

W. Gary Baker, Middleburg, Va., is the current U.S. Hunter Jumper Association Zone 3 chairman. He’s won numerous Zone and national awards, most of them with homebred horses or ponies. He’s a former judge and current show manager of five A- and AA-rated competitions and is also the chairman of the USHJA Pony Hunter Breeding Task Force.