Re: Carols comments, shows and organization
This message is from: Mike May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At 11:52 PM 9/23/98 -0600, you wrote: >This message is from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Information Architecture) > >1. Concerning shows. I am aware that the NFHR does not sponsor any of the >shows, but I think it might be a good idea if they did. I would not like to >see them restricted to NFHR-registered horses, nor would that be a good idea >cost wise, but most breed registries sponsor at least a nationals (or >"world") show as some call it and many sponsor regional shows as well. I >think that this would contribute to the professionalization of our breed. >Let Libby and Woodstock be as they are, but perhaps the registry could start >by setting standards for shows and approving shows as NHFR-approved (like >AHSA approved or ADS approved. We wouldn't even have to have the registry >sponsor entire shows, perhaps classes would do, that somehow counted for >points towards regional or national awards. > I am not sure that all of the groups take advantage of it or not but the NFHR DOES sponsor classes at the shows. I know they sponsor classes at the Woodstock show. I am not sure about the Blue Earth show as a lot of it is paid for by the County Fair. So I am not sure they even accept sponsorships. I know it was offered to the Libby show, I don't know if it was accepted or not. It was also offered to the Turlock show. I think I like the "NFHR Approved Show" classification. If the show organisers want to run it our way then they could use that in their programs etc. The regional or national awards are also a good idea. The NE group does have a program like this. It allows for lots of different catagories of showing and encourages the showing in open shows as well as 4H etc. It is a great way to get people out showing their horses. >One of the benefits of this, if the registry did it, would be to obtain and >provide a blanket insurance policy for a show and the actual show producer >could ask that their show be covered under that policy (perhaps for a small >fee). I have produced 2 "Fun Days" and insurance for each event cost me >$350! Obviously, you can't run too many events that way. > Yes insurance is always a problem. Another good idea Becky. >But there's more... > >2. If we were to have regional shows, we would need regions. Most breeds >have the country divided up into regions. The, we would need at least one >organization in each region that would be the official NFHR-affiliate. For >example, the Promotional Group might want to be that for one region (or it >might not)...Fjordings West for another The establishment of regional >groups would give us personnel to run a show in a region. The Fjord Herald >could have a regional report in each issue for that region. Regions could >be used to accumulate points for the nationals or whatever...Plus, it would >give new Fjord owners a clear local organization to belong to -- I'm in >Oregon and right now I don't know if I should tell people to belong to the >Promotional Group or to Fjordings West or to both. It would be much easier >if Oregon were officially covered by one region. > Well we don't have any well defined Regions yet. So far our regions have sort of been defined by quanity of horses in the areas. For instance if we had a southeast region we would have a real problem getting more than a handfull of horses to a show. Brian Jacobsen would be pretty lonely. I do think that as we progress this will have to happen though. For now though I would join the ones that are closest to me or that have the most activity. I belong to both the NE & the midwest groups. >3. We need a rulebook (or to adopt the rulebook of other organizations). >For the NFHR. I've mentioned this to people and it's mostly fallen on deaf >ears, but there was some confusion at the Oregon Evaluation over tack -- >what was allowed, what wasn't, was what was being used legal or not? If it >were written down, that would be the end of it. For example, at a breed >show, what's a two-year old? Aged by date of birth or having an official >birthday on Jan. 1 of the next year (like most breed registries do, so that >a baby born in October turns 1 the next January). Some people might go by >the AHSA standard, but I can guarantee that others do not. If it were >written down, it might be clearer. And what of tack -- can we use snaffles >on older horses shown Western? or must they be in a curb bit? Is training >tack allowed? I'm not talking about silver show saddles -- I would hate to >see the breed go that direction -- but are we having breed shows that accept >schooling tack? If we are, fine, but let's decide and write it down. I agree that if we are going to have such a thing as an "NFHR Approved Show" then we need a rule book to go along with that. As to the confusion at the Oregon Evaluation - I didn't see it as confusion. We do have rules for the Evaluation. The confusion you are talking about was
Carols comments, shows and organization
This message is from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Information Architecture) Carol Rivoire brought up some very interesting questions in her letter, and it certainly seems to be drawing some response. I have not had much time of late even to read the list, much less contribute, but I feel compelled to make some comments here. 1. Concerning shows. I am aware that the NFHR does not sponsor any of the shows, but I think it might be a good idea if they did. I would not like to see them restricted to NFHR-registered horses, nor would that be a good idea cost wise, but most breed registries sponsor at least a nationals (or "world") show as some call it and many sponsor regional shows as well. I think that this would contribute to the professionalization of our breed. Let Libby and Woodstock be as they are, but perhaps the registry could start by setting standards for shows and approving shows as NHFR-approved (like AHSA approved or ADS approved. We wouldn't even have to have the registry sponsor entire shows, perhaps classes would do, that somehow counted for points towards regional or national awards. One of the benefits of this, if the registry did it, would be to obtain and provide a blanket insurance policy for a show and the actual show producer could ask that their show be covered under that policy (perhaps for a small fee). I have produced 2 "Fun Days" and insurance for each event cost me $350! Obviously, you can't run too many events that way. But there's more... 2. If we were to have regional shows, we would need regions. Most breeds have the country divided up into regions. The, we would need at least one organization in each region that would be the official NFHR-affiliate. For example, the Promotional Group might want to be that for one region (or it might not)...Fjordings West for another The establishment of regional groups would give us personnel to run a show in a region. The Fjord Herald could have a regional report in each issue for that region. Regions could be used to accumulate points for the nationals or whatever...Plus, it would give new Fjord owners a clear local organization to belong to -- I'm in Oregon and right now I don't know if I should tell people to belong to the Promotional Group or to Fjordings West or to both. It would be much easier if Oregon were officially covered by one region. 3. We need a rulebook (or to adopt the rulebook of other organizations). For the NFHR. I've mentioned this to people and it's mostly fallen on deaf ears, but there was some confusion at the Oregon Evaluation over tack -- what was allowed, what wasn't, was what was being used legal or not? If it were written down, that would be the end of it. For example, at a breed show, what's a two-year old? Aged by date of birth or having an official birthday on Jan. 1 of the next year (like most breed registries do, so that a baby born in October turns 1 the next January). Some people might go by the AHSA standard, but I can guarantee that others do not. If it were written down, it might be clearer. And what of tack -- can we use snaffles on older horses shown Western? or must they be in a curb bit? Is training tack allowed? I'm not talking about silver show saddles -- I would hate to see the breed go that direction -- but are we having breed shows that accept schooling tack? If we are, fine, but let's decide and write it down. A rulebook would also give some sort of consistency to classes. Libby has a classes for "Novices" is defined as "never having won a ribbon in a horse show before." That's a great class and I don't have a problem with it, but I've never heard novice defined like that before -- it's not having won 3 blues in that division (Western, English, driving...) in most other organizations. Wouldn't some standardization be useful? Turlock has novice classes as well, but they're defined in the more conventional way, so winning one means something different. Plus, if you go to Libby, you're either in novice or open, since there's no in between (until this year, when they did add green horse and walk/trot) so if you're not a novice because you won a 6th place somewhere and you're honest, then you're stuck competing in a class that perhaps you have no chance to even place in. As far as rules are concerned, I'm of the opinion that, for the most part, it's better not to recreate the wheel. There is an AHSA rulebook and an ADS rulebook which it might be appropriate to adopt some sections out of. But relatively small breeds (buckskins, POAs, etc.) have written their own books and so it's not impossible. And that might be the way to go, since there are certain characteristics of those owning own breed that might need to be taken into account (for example, a lot of older Fjord horses are still green, so perhaps we would want to allow a snaffle or bosal in Western classes, regardless of the age of the horse). A rulebook ought to be one of the things you get when you joi
