Strong Objection To Rule Change Proposal

[Yaddax3]

I urge everyone who will be voting on this AMHR Proposal:

B.Add Hunter and Jumper division – An exhibitor can only show a maximum of two entries per class.

VOTE NO.

If an exhibitor has the desire and stamina to show more than two horses in Hunter and Jumper, why should they be prevented from doing it?

Is this an attempt to keep adults and children with good jumpers from winning multiple ribbons?

Frankly, I'm old and out of shape, so I make it a personal policy not to jump more than two minis in a class out of self-preservation.

However ...

I have children who are young and in shape. I also have six minis that have won National titles in Hunter and/or Jumper at AMHR Nationals or Shetland Congress, and a few others good enough to win. Why should my children -- or anyone else's children, or anyone for that matter -- be prevented from showing as many minis as they desire in Hunter and Jumper?

We bring horses to shows that only jump. We also bring young minis to jump that need show experience. And I'm sure we're not alone. There are a number of reasons to object to this proposal, including this: The proposal, if ratified, would impact the money that clubs and AMHR Nationals make off show fees.

I don't know who made this proposal. I just hope it's not some sourpuss who doesn't like losing ribbons to somebody who jumps more than two minis. If it is. my advice would be: Work harder and don't try to make the class easier by reducing the competition.

 

[Lmequine]

I know that a good number of folks are right with you on this one. We have been discussing it all day long down here in Area V via private email and also on some of the forums.

This rule change would 1) reduce the amount of fees collected for a show due to loss of entries, office, and stall fees; 2) it would limit the number of HOF points available in those classes. It already takes a long time to HOF in hunter and jumper because there is no championship class; and 3) as a trainer, it limits my income as I would not be able to have three or four B minis for example in training for hunter and jumper and also I would not be able to earn any money catch handling at shows in those classes. I also see it as a hardship on many youth that train very hard for this class with multi animals.

 

[targetsmom]

I would hate to see this passed as I think it would set a bad precedent. We show mostly Pinto where I used to show as many as three in hunter and jumper classes. I only just stopped doing this because I can't do that many anymore, but I see absolutely no point in the rule change. It is more entry fees and more potential points to go around. We only have 8 minis total on our farm and 5 of them can do hunter and jumper right now. Why would anyone want to discourage this???? If time is the issue, then address that in the show schedule.

Is this rule going to also apply to other classes such as obstacle?

 

[Lmequine]

Is this rule going to also apply to other classes such as obstacle?

As this proposal was written in the agenda it only included hunter and jumper.

 

[Sanny]

Bob already pretty much said it all and spoke for our family with his original post on this but I wanted to add something further for people to think about.

I think this rule proposal was not well thought out at all.

The biggest impact would be on trainers showing multiple horses for clients or someone that shows by themselves.

It would not affect our family nearly as much as others and really, if anything, would benefit us because my husband and I both jump horses in hunter and jumper so if we were restricted to just two horses each that would mean our FAMILY could still show a total of four horses in each class. In youth classes at shows three of our five children are now jumping horses and that means our kids could still jump two horses each for a total of six horses from our family. If another family is at the show and has several good jumping horses but only one child showing or one adult showing they would be limited to choosing two horses to jump.

Finally, I believe the biggest impact of all I believe would be on local clubs hosting shows. I know most clubs just barely break even and if show entries/fees drop a few hundred dollars at each show because of a rule change like this then it could mean a club loses money on their shows instead of breaking even. I know we would be writing much smaller checks to shows because during the year we do bring horses that are just learning to jump that need experience and we have brought horses to shows that have done only hunter and jumper classes. If we start leaving horses home because of a rule like this passing then we won't be paying the show fees plus additional stalls and the other expenses for those extra horses and the club hosting the show will take the hit on the drop in revenue not just from our family because I am sure there are others that would be bringing fewer horses and paying out less in show fees.

I ALSO WANTED TO ADD...........if this rule was proposed because someone thinks shows take too long because the Hunter and Jumper classes are too big and take too long, I see plenty of classes at shows we go to that have NO ENTRIES or just ONE or TWO entries. The length of time it takes to run those classes with either NO horses in them or just ONE or TWO horses should balance out the big hunter and jumper classes.

 

[muffntuf]

I just went back to see who the sponsor was of this proposal and noticed it was left out.

I don't show hunter/jumper, but have run shows with big HJ classes= usually they are run when the show is just starting to get momentum or its winding down, so I don't see why we need this rule change.

I am not for changing the way the rules exist for how many can be shown.

I do however wonder what peoples thoughts are on the proposal for jump offs - good idea, bad idea?

BOD - vote the limitation proposal down!

 

[Lmequine]

I do not have a problem with the jumping being first round timed and only jump-offs for those with identical times and faults and I will vote for that proposal.

Again, I do have a big problem with being limited to showing only two head in each division and will vote against it.

 

[~Lisa~]

I think they are both silly. It will really hurt local clubs if they both pass

Why on earth with shows struggling would you cut your $ how does that make any sort of sense.

As far as shows taking to long frankly I am tired of hearing it. Honestly I have waited all day for my classes before and yes it sucks. But really why is halter more important then hunter or obstacle? What is the most important to some is silly to others no matter what it is.

Again the Jump offs- silly idea..I will not be voting for it and will be talking to my directors as well

 

[mydaddysjag]

Im against it. I have been to shows where I showed my halter classes at 10 am, and it wasnt until 4 or 5 pm until I ran my hunter course. It was the last class of the day. I seem to remember waiting patiently through all the showmanship, obstacle, halter, and driving classes, and would expect the same for other exhibitors waiting on me to finish my class.

 

[Karen S]

Good Morning,

For those of you that say you are against the proposal that will change how the Jumping is done, with one round, timed and accumulated faults, why would you turn it down? Give us some reasons behind the no vote.

The way it is now, you run through the course as in a "trial" without being timed, you have to make a clean round to come back and compete. Hunter you go through just one time and no one complains. Jumper is no different. What you have to keep in mind, if you have a large class of jumpers, you are actually doubling your time causing the show to run that much longer. This just makes it comparible to Hunter.

Karen

 

[Yaddax3]

The only possible objection I can see to just one round in Jumper -- one timed round -- is that it does not conform with USEF Jump rules, and our organization uses that as a guideline.

As for me, I'm all for just one round. I'm old and slowing down, and I have a finite number of Jumper course runs left in me. Karen's rule proposal has my support.

As for the proposal to limit exhibitors to just two minis for Hunter and Jumper, that continues to have zero support from me. I would like to hear from the person who proposed it to know why they want it.

 

[maryann]

I have many reasons that apply to me personally as to why I would hate to see the Hunter

Jumper classes restricted to two entries per exhibitor . However the over all picture all over the

country would be less horses at shows. Which means less stall fees , less numbers of entry fees beign paid and less money coming back to the registry and to the clubs that do struggle to finance shows in their areas. Sounds like we would be cutting our own throats to pass this one.

We have all worked hard to show the versitility of the Miniature horse. This would shrink the number of horses at shows that could demonstrate just that. Has anyone explained why that was proposed ? As far as the first round Jumper being timed I really don't have a problem with that. Mary

 

[~Lisa~]

Good Morning,
For those of you that say you are against the proposal that will change how the Jumping is done, with one round, timed and accumulated faults, why would you turn it down? Give us some reasons behind the no vote.

Karen

Simply put Karen running it the way it is now.. allows it to be run like ANY OTHER JUMPER CLASS IN THE EQUINE INDUSTRY- they all run the same way and allow for that second round (which the course should change slightly as well as larger jumps)

Why give the large horse community another reason to scoff at the athleticism of our small horses and ponies.

I keep hearing all these complaints about shows running longer to many horses- to many classes well first off I do not compete in Jumper however if it was the classes important to you as a individual then it would not seem like a waste of time.

Sadly it seems many feel anything but halter and driving is a total waste of the shows time and is bothersome well except for the fact that those other classes bring it a lot of dollars

The answer is simple run those classes at the end of the day those who feel bothered by them can simply leave- those who are in them will not have to spend the next couple of hours listening to those bothered them complaining about it on the rail.

 

[Just Us N Texas]

As I stated on the other post, I can't see any reason to restrict the hunter/jumper classes to two horses except for time reasons. We don't do hunter or jumper because we aren't in enough condition! I do worry that if they limit those classes, others will be next, such as liberty and obstacle. I love watching liberty class, and my family does show in it, and we're starting to train for obstacle as well.

I also worry that by cutting down those classes it will also cut down on revenue, and heaven knows, we don't need to do that! If you lose revenue in one area, you will have to make it up some other way, and that means class fees for other classes will have to increase, also stall fees, etc., etc. In this economy we are all struggling to pay entry fees and etc., and most of us aren't showing as much as we used to. Don't know about the rest of you, but, we are looking at the entry fees, stall fees, and etc., and comparing them and choosing the shows that will give us more bang for our buck.

 

[wsf]

Good Morning,
For those of you that say you are against the proposal that will change how the Jumping is done, with one round, timed and accumulated faults, why would you turn it down? Give us some reasons behind the no vote.

Karen

Simply put Karen running it the way it is now.. allows it to be run like ANY OTHER JUMPER CLASS IN THE EQUINE INDUSTRY- they all run the same way and allow for that second round (which the course should change slightly as well as larger jumps)

Why give the large horse community another reason to scoff at the athleticism of our small horses and ponies.

I keep hearing all these complaints about shows running longer to many horses- to many classes well first off I do not compete in Jumper however if it was the classes important to you as a individual then it would not seem like a waste of time.

Sadly it seems many feel anything but halter and driving is a total waste of the shows time and is bothersome well except for the fact that those other classes bring it a lot of dollars

The answer is simple run those classes at the end of the day those who feel bothered by them can simply leave- those who are in them will not have to spend the next couple of hours listening to those bothered them complaining about it on the rail.

I very much agree. We need to keep jumper the way it is and how it is supposed to be run. I love competing in hunter and jumper and I hate to see these classes getting pushed around for times sake. I think jumper should be run in the same way as every other jumper class in the equine industry.

 

[Yaddax3]

If the impetus for this proposal was to save time at shows, Liberty and Obstacle classes also would have been included.

What was the impetus?

Only the person who proposed it knows for sure.

I'm just glad we have level-headed people on the board who would see the flaws in such a proposal, and know that it would impact fees from local shows to AMHR Nationals.

 

[muffntuf]

Yes indeeded Bob!

 

[Magic]

And if the reason for this rule change proposal is to save time, it's rather silly. Not every horse that does a Jumper course is going to have a clear round to go to the jump-off, and really, each run is maybe 30 seconds, maximum. Even if you have ten horses in the class that make the jump-off, it's an extra five minutes. Big deal, that's the time of a tack change hold.

 

[skanzler]

I have read and totally understand the reasoning behind the no votes. As many have stated here, this proposal would limit the income of all area shows. It would give all those that love the perfromance classes less time to show off thier horse's talent and it would not solve the issue of shows running too long. There are many aspects to running a show that can cause delays. Not just a hunter class or a obstacle class or liberty class.

I don't feel the answer is to run these at the end of the day just because someone doesn't want to sit through a performance class. We should support each other, no matter what discipline we choose. Many of us get into the mind set that one class or discipline is more important than another. I feel, as do many on this board that ALL disciplines are important to our industry as a whole. The versatility of these small equine is what makes them such a great option for so many people. I hope that we continue to work together to keep this industry strong.

I will choose to vote no on this particular proposal, only because I do not feel, personally, that it benefits the industry as a whole.

 

[Mark & Sharon Bullington]

Syndi -

Well said. Time is not really a factor, but the amount of money lost certainly would be. The way we run our classes at the local, Regional and National shows does not take that much time - and those that enter the performance classes pay their class fees just like all other entrants. They are entitled to their portion of the shows as well. I encourage all to vote "No" on the proposed changes.

Mark Bullington