Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 6 of 6
The proposed by-law changes sent out to our membership in October of this year in a special notice were approved by the 2/3rds majority of voters at the meeting. We also had reports from all our committee chairpersons and the
membership also approved the budget for the 2008 fiscal
There were several proposed rule changes that did not have the welfare of the horse first & foremost. Yet they passed by such a margin. What a sad day.
C-1 Constitution, Article II, Section 2, H, Page 2 - specifically - tail alterations are now allowed - main reason being PFHA was afraid a new association would form to compete against them for revenue
1-4 Chapter One, Section VIII, Fraudulent Practices, Part E, Page 27 - now reworded to allow tail alterations to be legal2-2 Chapter two, Section IV, A, Page 40A - another rewording of a rule so that tail alterations can now be legal
2-3 Chapter Two, Section IV, D, Page 41 - Guess what? regards tail alterations again - the reasoning this time is to specifically REMOVE the words "and natural" from the way the rule previously read so tail alterations can now be legal
2-4 Chapter Two, Section IV, H, Page 42 - rewording the previous rule yet again to allow tail alterations to be legal
2-5 Chapter Two, Section VI, A, page 43 - once again to allow tail alterations
Chapter 2, Section IV of the rule book is titled Naturalness of Breed - In my own personal opinion I see nothing at all natural in an altered tail. To me this is the same as the ASB people roaching manes & bobbing tails then adding extensions & calling the horse's appearance natural; or Arabian people balding the eyes & muzzle of a horse with clippers, greasing them up & again calling them natural; - there are many examples in many breeds.
Cruelty aside - I won't even address that point right now , it's just too depressing to me - any & all of the above practices defies any definition of natural.
On another rule change topic, I wonder how show attendance will be affected now that youth exhibitors are no longer allowed to compete in A/O classes?
How wise is this new rule? After all, aren't youth touted as the future in any recreational activity - you know - hopefully their attention & interest is captured as youth & they will continue their involvement as adults?
How interested is a kid going to be if they can only show in a small number of classes at a show? Or better yet, in this economy, how many parents are going to drive kid & horse all over the countryside to compete in just a few classes per show? Just seems illogical in an economic & financial sense to me - basically like making a rule that is meant to lose money rather than increase revenue. For the record, I do not now, nor ever will have a kid showing Pasos or any other breed.
I said it before & will say it again - many of these rule changes appear to be specifically written to serve certain agendas rather than the breed or association members as a whole. There are quite a few of them that had questionable reasoning for the proposed (now approved) changes.
Well my daughter was the High Point Amateur Owner as a youth and most of her classes are A/O or open classes. She also made her gelding the High Point Paso Fino and High Point Gelding and that was partly due to her A/O classes since they don't count youth points toward those awards. If she is limited to only Junior Youth classes, there goes a big part of our entry fees at every show. We will also be doing a lot less shows since I won't take her out of school to haul to shows for a few classes. There are people who are not amateurs and adults showing in the amateur owner classes and that should be addressed, but only a few kids showing in A/O classes at any show. I don't show myself and Alex takes in horses in A/O schooling classes to show potential buyers the horse can be ridden by an owner and not just a trainer. We don't even take the trainer to some smaller shows where one horse can do several youth classes and a couple of A/O classes. By the way, Alex took 2nd and 3rd in the last open Pleasure Stallion Championship in Ocala with 9 entries and she was the only A/O and youth in the class of trainers. How do you think trainers feel getting whipped by a kid when it's their job on the line and not just their ego (although they have big egos, too). Are they going to limit kids from showing in open classes or are they just protecting the egos of a few owners?
Terible that a few adults are mad they get beaten by a kid - and it really bothers them if the kid is so young they are wearing a helmet when they win. To me, if the kid or it's family OWN a horse, then they should meet the requirements of Amateur Owner. With the market the way it is now, we should be encouraging almost any entry at a show to increase revenue. Personally I feel we should get rid of Amateur OWNER classes and let people lease horses for show and just do AMATEUR classes. There's a market for leased horses in lots of other breeds and we limit it to just owners or people who will sign an affidavit they are owners to show A/O.
It is stupid and self-centered for anyone to limit anything that brings in money for our shows and regions in this economy. Since when is ego more important that entries and income at our shows?
I really don't think the passage of these reflect the majority rule of the association,as it's only a small percentage that can attend meetings and vote, or if voting by proxy, getting it notarized; at least that is my understanding. Many of the members who are members and own a horse just for trail, are not likely to vote, nor do they think this affects them, and it doesn't. Who is actually going to be able to read all those rule changes, I couldn't for various reasons. I wonder why so many changes were needed to begin with, that arouses question right there. I do agree that they cater to a few in many instances, and are about the individuals possibly wanting the changes. The tail cutting/fixing is not natural, and is an asthetic alteration for some, and a quick fix for controlling the horse's overt expression of agitation, instead of proper training; one more way people insist everyone adapt to them instead of them doing the adapting, the work. It's the easy way out.
What disturbs me is that the tail is part of the spine, and they do need their tails for balance, movement, etc.; it's all part of the package. Then again, I'm one of these people that don't believe in shaving horses so that they can look pretty....I think that's disastrous. Horses must have their whiskers in order to graze, to determine in part which grasses and plants to forage. They sense vibrations through these whiskers that we think should be shaven. I think we all know why the eyelashes are so important. We do all kinds of things to our horses for our own whims, delights, preferences and likes; it's really very disadvantageous to the animal itself. This is really about ego and nothing else, and people demanding their will, their way. I do believe originally, that "naturalness" had to do with the gait more than anything, as people used to not fix their tails, the horse's that is. So when it comes to things like this, people are going with what they personally want or like and nothing else, and that is self-centeredness, because they will not set themselves aside, what they like, what they want. If it's not beneficial to the horse, and doesn't improve the quality of the horse then it shouldn't be done. There are other solutions to controlling the horse's tail, but tail cutting is the easy way out for human, not animal. It's also competing and winning at all costs.Tail fixing is one quick fix to keep the tail from swishing in competition, where they otherwise would not make the grade. So winning is at the forefront again, by cutting corners, tails or whatever is necessary to compete and win. Even though horses are pivotal, it's only to the degree within the framework of man's purpose. There's also the monetary factor involved in all this. Competing, winning means recognition, power and money, the three ingredients that drive the majority in any endeavor in the human race.
Juli is right in some of these rule changes being only about serving personal agendas. Marelyn is right also from her perspective of showing. Generally, when rules are passed that serve a few, benefits a few, not only the majority suffer, but the whole health and growth potential of the entity suffers as well. Control is always about power for a few, never about the welfare of the many. I don't know that this specifically is the case or applies here, but they are just principles in general that generally apply across the board where more than one person is gathered in society.