appaloosablogspot.com

Board of Directors: Dateline Moscow, Idaho

We’re finishing up the fairly extensive list of committee meetings. As I type, the Rules Committee is discussing medication/drug rules and how they may need to be adjusted in terms of classification updates, labeling, penalties, etc. As you all know, keeping up with new drugs, new uses and new problems is a real challenge. We don’t relish the role of enforcement, but we know that fairness to all exhibitors and participants is critical.

One discussion that may not involve lots of people, but is linked to breed identity is the range of qualifications for the Heritage Class. Looks like there may be a proposal to return to the original definition that specifies Native American heritage and make less room for the broad range of “costumes” we sometimes see. No board decision yet, so stay tuned. * Update — the Board decided to keep it simple and add a line in the rulebook that gives judges some room to discriminate against “frivolous and/or disrespectful attire or presentations.”

Interaction has been good. Committees have forwarded recommendations on a wide variety of topics. Note — there are several proposals on the table that have come from the membership — through their directors and directly to a committee. You are being represented.

In any case, I believe it’s always a good idea for board members to visit Moscow, see the office and museum, and get better acquainted with staff members. The current rule states that the board needs to come to Moscow at least once every three years.

Have to say, I’m pleased with the participation and focus of the volunteers who serve the members. I’ll do my best to provide some highlights no later than sometime Monday.

11 Comments

  1. Sue Gameway Said,

    March 28, 2007 @ 4:18 pm

    Hi. While I applaud the board’s decision to modify the heritage rules, I l believe that you may have created a rule that is more up to personal interpretation rather than define what is acceptable. What one person may call frivolouse may be a museum trinket to another. It also will not be a consistant decision as it is subject to each exhibitor’s and each judge’s interpretation. I would like to see that items that are authentic, replicas, and historic all be judged on the same basis, without more leverage given to authentic. The clubs, the judges, and the ApHC cannot authenticate these items, so it is dependant upon people telling the truth. It also depends on the interpretation of authentic.

  2. Steve Said,

    March 29, 2007 @ 7:41 am

    I’m assuming there will be much more discussion as we go along, but here’s what I think was the overall intent of the rule addition: Judges acknowledge that many within their ranks are not specifically experts on various costume components and often can’t make a distinction between genuine and replica, or even almost-replica materials. But many would like the option of discriminating against obvious cases of misrepresentation, truly frivolous entries, and clear examples of exhibitors with no interest in the heritage aspect of the class.

  3. Evon Owens Said,

    March 29, 2007 @ 10:52 am

    Re; Heritage.
    Many of us have spent long hours researching and obtaining items to display during the Heritage class. I need the clubs intreperation on the term “frivolous”. I also feel that the judges are not knowledgeable and should be instructed by a tribal member and not by an entrant into the class, giving that entrant an unfair advanage.

    I would like authentic, replicas or historic pieces given the same credibility. This class should also include the person who has developed reenactment attire that is correct to the time period. be it mountain man or old time cowgirl. This can be done without the exhibitors using outfits brom their western/english pleasure class.

    To sum this up I feel a time period is better suited to goven the rules and keep the modern day exhibitor out of the arena to simply fill the class. Instruction to judges by tribal members.

    Respectfully.

  4. Debbie Herzman Said,

    March 29, 2007 @ 11:41 am

    I agree with Sue – the poor judges have no way to know if the pieces exhibitors are saying authentic really are or if the paperwork they present is real – or if the place that is suppose to have issued those same certificates & paperwork even ever existed………. – they shouldn’t have too……….. they should be judging the entries ontheir merits & ability to relate what they are representing – this is not a museum class & all this “Authentic. authentic, authentic this & that is not good……………… the representation of overall picture is what is important , not a story that an outfit seems to fit into – all the judges really need is a basic overall description of what type of outfit is being shown, what era, time period and such and if they ask – have any questions they want answered – they don’t need to know this saddle was owned by , or that piece was once used by………….. not what the class is about – it never has been. – by doing this you are discouraging potential & existing exhibitors that go why even bother……………………..

  5. Sue Gameway Said,

    March 29, 2007 @ 12:44 pm

    Just another thought, First I do not have any problem with judges discrimating against the obvious cases of misrepresentation, truly frivolous, or ones with no interest in the heritage aspect. But if 20 or more of these are in a class with several legitimate entries, the the legitimte entries definately get the national points benefit of those entries being in the class. The proposed rule change as stated in the blog just states essentially that ok you won’t win, if you are one of the above, but you still count for the number in the class. At least that is my interpretation, I am sure there are other interpretations 🙂

  6. Steve Said,

    March 29, 2007 @ 1:30 pm

    Admittedly, the phrasing is a bit vague, but my impression is that judges will have the option of disqualifying an entry that is offensive, disrespectful or otherwise not worthy of consideration. How that “authority” is applied will certainly depend on each judge and situation. The intent, I believe, is not to deem certain “artifacts” unworthy, but rather help reduce totally inappropriate entries.

  7. Debbie Herzman Said,

    March 30, 2007 @ 6:59 am

    It has always been a hazy situation @ best – the additons of the stories only tended to elaborate the problems

    I think the points we are all trying to get across are

    (1) to much status is being placed on use of the word “authentic” when it comes to the description of pieces – equal credit needs to be given to pieces that are accuarately reproduced or replicated to avoid having to place judges in the postion of being an “expert” and trying to evaluated what is & isn’t authentic, what documents are & are legitimate (pretty bad when you havce 200 words @ the nationals or worlds to decribe an outfit & some of the stories use “Authentic” 14-20 times) ……………. another good one is museum quality – which is nothing more then a reprodution or replica inthe first place

    (2) Most exhibitors in the class have no problem showing against legitimate outifts that are other then the NA style – not everyone is into the beading & labor and such – others like the old style western outfits or any other one associated with the breed’s past –
    ( mountain man, cavarly, trapper, early american lady riding sidesaddle, etc)
    don’t eliminate their ability to portray the Appaloosas heritage in their own way – these are legitamate entries into the classes & a lot of time, effort & collecting, as well as draging out of family heirlooms has gone into the making of these…………… they are, just as any other exhibitor, portraying the breed’s heritage that is other then NA. Wasn’t that the purpose of opening it up to all eras in the fist place? allows others to show also, increase the potential of the class and allow those exhibiotrs other then the ones riding in NA outfits to compete?

    Not looking to penalize them because others chose to abuse the status with regards to outfits they can use to increase the size of the class.

    I would love to have 15,18 or even 20 horses parading about out there in the Heritage class – common sense however & a lot of years of showing in it – you are lucky when you can get 3-5, thanking your lucky stars when you can get to 8 and loving life if you get more then that.

  8. Sue Gameway Said,

    April 3, 2007 @ 12:48 pm

    OK another question on your answer, Steve. At what point will this entry be disqualified? Before it goes in the gate or after it has made the class count. If it is after the class count, the new rule serves no purpose other than to make a class even more vague than before. If the club can come up with pages of rules for calf roping, surely they can do better than this.

  9. Steve Said,

    April 3, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

    I suspect there will more discussion and clarification of intent, especially with the considerable feedback received. My impression is that the disqualified entry would not count, but that will be a specific point we’ll bring up. Thanks.

  10. Sue Gameway Said,

    April 5, 2007 @ 8:28 am

    Thank you. Right now if you have 8 horses in any of our classes, not just heritage, it counts as an 8 horse class, even if 7 disqualify. That was why I was asking the question. Technically speaking, a judge has always been able to discriminate against or DQ an entry they did not approve of in heritage. But those other entries have always counted toward the total number of horses in the class.

  11. Sue Gameway Said,

    April 7, 2007 @ 10:53 am

    Thanks Steve, for answering my blogs.

RSS feed for comments on this post