Comments on: Opinions wanted – ApHC “Question of the Week”

By: Jeanne Joliffe

Jeanne Joliffe — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:24:51 +0000

Youth and Non-Pro already can show a leased horse just cannot earn National Points. I have no problem with this. I do not think it would be fair to earn Nat. Pts. just because you can afford to lease a Worlds/Nationals quality horse. I show Non-Pro and Open at regional shows. I have qualified for Worlds/Nationals but have never gone because I can not afford to go. My main problem is with showing against “professional” Non-Pros who stay just within the rules…oh, well, that’s life. I show because I love it and my ‘Appaloosa family’ at a level I can afford. I have my own horses to love and care for, not a ‘rent-a-horse’ to glorify myself in others eyes.

By: Sue

Sue — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:10:28 +0000

My response is NO on both. I must really agree with the basics of what “Jacobs” said. The system is totally geared to the people who go to Nationals and Worlds every year, and those people will usually find a way to get around the system anyway because they are current on issues/rules etc. Doing a sale/transfer back is probably more common than anyone realizes. So allowing a lease is just going to create a bunch of rule-making, rule revising, and pot stirring! Does the ApHC need more busy-work or something?
My daughter leases a gelding to show, which is currently legal for youths to do, she just doesn’t get points . . . so what? It is a great way for me to see how serious she wants to be before I spend thousands on a youth horse. And youth don’t have to qualify for Youth Worlds anyway. So that option is already out there for beginners or people wanting to test the waters. As for the non-pro’s, this may really be out on a limb, but I feel that whole “non-pro” thing is so hugely abused we ought to just do away with it completely. There should be just open classes with a novice division. Once you earn so many points, you’re out. The top non-pros have been winning for years, are all hooked up with a top trainer (or married to one), and could beat most of the new/novice trainers in about anything. Plus it must be frustrating to a real non-pro to know they don’t have much of a chance of beating the same title holders year after year. This creates incentive for the Novice Non Pros to NOT SHOW at regional shows because they don’t want to earn points to lose their novice status in case they want to go to Nationals/Worlds. We need a true novice division that anyone can have a shot at – THAT would bring in new members/showers in my opinion.

By: Ben & Carrie Hemken

Ben & Carrie Hemken — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:45:35 +0000

I don’t feel it would be right to allow youth lease of horses. I think this will discourage ownership by average horse people. If my child is going to now compete against open horses that would not otherwise be shown in youth classes this will make it very discouraging. Let’s find a way to gain youth without hurting those children that are already dedicated to the ApHC by owning and taking pride in their own animal. Horse ownership is a responsibility, this should not be RENT A HORSE.

Likewise, I feel the same for Non-Pro. Who is going to want to raise and train horses on a small level just to be competing against someone that has spent a fraction of the cost of horse ownership. Riding animals take years to develop – what is the incentive to raise one to keep and promote if someone else is allowed these shortcuts?

By: Jacobs

Jacobs — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:50:33 +0000

I probably should walk away from this one. I hope that you take what I say as positive input. That’s how it is ment to be presented. I would bet that most people commenting here are trainers or breeders (or under a top ApHC trainer). AND…it is beneficial to them to maintain this ruling or make it lean more towards them.

The person/owner that owns only a handful (or one) Appaloosas doesn’t have a clue this venue is available to them. If they can’t afford a Top and/or ApHC trainer then they are pretty much done. They are not organized. They really don’t know that they have a voice…..thier fault, maybe…but the ApHC’s loss. They just love thier Appaloosa and don’t spend the time that someone in business would doing research. They are out there in the “trenches” doing more for promoting the Appaloosa then a lot of ApHC owners do at the ApHC shows. So, the results to this questionnaire, to me is really tainted. I do commend the DOB for trying and asking the question. Thank you!

I would ask that the ApHC regional club/national club put together some questions (that you need specific answers to) and have someone in the Regional club physically contact some of the regional club’s “one hit wonders” to the ApHC regional shows. Or, Appaloosa owners doing well other venues (i.e. Open, 4-H, Gaming, Reining, etc) …and actually LISTEN to what they say. Not just breeders or trainers.

I know that when I haul out to a ApHC breed show …. the Youth or Non Pro horse is the same horse I’ll see in the Open classes. The ApHC regional shows are totally geared towards the breeder or trainer. This has been so abused….and what amazes me is how openly it has been done. Very few abusers (depending on who you are) are held accountable in the ApHC. I won’t haul out to a ApHC show unless I am ready to compete with the pro’s! There is no place for the small owner to show in the ApHC and feel good about thier horse, be competitive and want to come back. I believe that this ruling was originally set up for them. They are telling you loud and clear that you product (regional shows) are not taking care of them (the new customer) by NOT coming/returning to your shows. It’s pretty simple really.

If it stays the same (and nothing changes) then…..the results will stay the same. This way of thinking hasn’t brought in many NEW (optimum word here in NEW….not wife’s or transfers from other breeds) people/client in the past that stay (or at least not enough), so keeping it the same, will not make ANY difference.

It cost MORE to show ApHC then AQHA and APHC (or at least it does around here) so……if I’m smart, I’d be changing breeds ASAP! If I have money (for smaller named trainers, etc), then again, it would be smarter to change breeds. Now, add the fact that I’m new and dealing with this ruling geared towards the breeder/trainer and have this political non-sense…..then, again I change breeds. And, there is more abuse/GOB/Politics in the ApHC shows then the other breeds around here. Sorry, I know many will disagree or don’t care to hear that comment. Look at the numbers and they don’t lie. If you make it so the little man can’t show, then the top trainers will have to “jump ship” to another breed (to be able to make money)…….hey, that’s pretty much what has been done!

I have owned and LOVED only Appaloosas for over 30 years and will continue to own/love them. I will show ApHC shows ONLY when I feel that I’m ready. We show mainly open and 4-H regularly. I love it when people walk past and make comments like “stunning Appaloosa, were did you get him” or when we explain the breed to new people.

We are seeing many new Appaloosa owners in the Open and 4-H shows and the horses are very nice. But, they don’t show ApHC shows. Those are the people that you need to talk to IMO.

So, I’d like to see this ruling lean more for the “little people” or small time owner. Actually made stiffer (with more requirements) to insure that it’s used properly and for what it was (IMO) set up for. All abusers stopped and they are held accountable. The little people actually count and are needed by the trainers/breeders and for growth.

Growth only really actually comes from NEW/returning to ApHC owners IMO.

By: Judy

Judy — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:53:45 +0000

No one has mentioned anything about the people that (try to) keep track of all this on a regional level. How would we know who is (actually) eligible?
Maybe you could do like the youth & let the non pros show a horse, but not be able to accrue any points until they own the horse outright. Personally I find it difficult enough to compete against the youth that has just turned non pro without allowing them (the non pro) to “skirt” the rules (somewhat) by in effect what amounts to (in my mind) the “borrowing” of a horse. The non pro division has shown some growth. Why “tinker” with something that doesn’t appear to be “broke?”

By: donna

donna — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:12:07 +0000

Unless something is going to be done about the few people that continue to abuse the non pro system, it really doesn’t matter what the outcome is…people will continue to just do an ownership transfer like they have always done.. as a non pro I have seen things continually discussed for Years…and nobody carrying through with anything and am finding this quite discouraging. 3 good examples…… 35/over Non-pro has Only 5 pointed/world/national classes when it is currently the largest division…. discussion of changing age groups for nonpro divisions which has now been talked about for over 3 years….and finally Pros that have made their complete livings off of horse training for 15 + years now becoming non pros after only 3 years….

By: Debbie M

Debbie M — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:51:32 +0000

Absolutely YES, to both questions. Considering the economy, and the direction the industry is headed, we should everything possible to encourage everyone to show, and learn about our breed!

By: Dana

Dana — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:54:28 +0000

I believe that rule change in both the question and the follow up question would be beneficial to not only the regional clubs who so desprately need entries, but also to the National organization who will benefit from increased revenue in fees and in people wanting to compete at the National and World shows.

By: Carla

Carla — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:37:52 +0000

I agree that there has been way too much abuse of this rule but we need to address the issue more where the youth are concerned than with the NP. There are many good kids that flat out just cannot afford a horse and the training and all of the fancy stuff that goes with it. If they could be “co-owners” on a horse with an unrelated NP, the kid could show and help with the expenses of the trainer, hauling, stall, etc. I don’t agree with a trainer or open rider being listed as co-owners (family members that are trainers are an entirely different subject)but I think it would benefit the regional clubs as well as the ApHC. Face it, the people that are going to cheat are going to get around whatever rule you put out there no matter what it is for; they are doing it now and will continue ’til the end of time. THere are legitimate reasons for co-ownership on a horse between a non related youth and NP. My good trail gelding only needs a total of 10.5 points to complete his youth supreme champion; we simply misunderstood the requirements, thought we had it but found out after the end of the show season that we were short. Now that my son is a NP, we have to put some kids name on his papers and my son give up showing or we have to give up on the thought of getting the award. Here is a horse that has definitely earned the kudos but will probably never get the recognition due to the restricted ownership clause. It is not worth giving up the limited number of shows we now are able to attend just for that one award. With a simple change, a youth could have the opportunity to ride a decent horse (and get “hooked” on appaloosas to possibly purchase one of their own) the regional club and ApHC would get additional entries and fees and nobody would be the worse for the change. What about a youth whose horse gets hurt? And there is a NP in the barn that is willing to share their horse while the youth horse recovers? Not every exhibitor has an “open checkbook” and can just stroke a check for another horse if one gets hurt. As much as I hate the fact that the rule was abused (and still is being abused) I think a change would be good for youth and NP. I do NOT think it should be a co-ownership between a trainer and a non related NP.

By: Doyla

Doyla — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:01:27 +0000

If I wasn’t absolutely certain that this privilege would be abused I would say it was a great idea. I know that this sounds very negative, but I would have to vote no to this rule change.