Hold the Phone!!

Ok…just for giggles I decided to figure out where I fit in.  USE or SHOW. 

Guess what folks…I don’t.  Myself and a pile of my fellow amateurs are in limbo land.

For Show, you need to earn over 1000K in relation to show activities.   Well, unless I have a crankin year…I’m not getting that in prize money.  Also, is that gross, net…do we take out expenses first and that is pure profit?  If I subtract what I paid to get those prize checks (hauling, trainer fees, entries), I am definitely not clearing that!

So, I am not SHOW…am I USE?

Nope.  To be use, if you compete it can only be at open competitions.  I only show at A rated USEF governed events.

Well…guess I am SOL!

Who else is in limbo?? I challenge you to figure it out before voting.

35 Responses to Hold the Phone!!

  1. blondie says:

    I’m in limbo-land too!

  2. mbk says:

    Me Too!!!

  3. Carley says:

    I show as a professional (assistant trainer, so I definitely don’t make the big $$) and still don’t fit into the show category.

  4. Vintage_Rider says:

    By that definition, I only ASPIRE to be show as some day I HOPE to make more than $1k, let alone NET!

  5. nightmusicfarms says:

    In order for anyone to make an objective decision, it is necessary to have accurate, balanced, factual information and I am personally very disappointed in the information the AMHA currently has on the website.

    I should state clearly here that I am completely opposed to the efforts of the people associated with GoMorgans and in particular think that a handful of them have done and will do all that they can to bring the current structure down, regardless of the ruse they need to employ. I am also totally opposed to Proposal 3 and in favor of no term limits and have voted accordingly. I categorize myself as a person who owns and promotes show horses, appreciates all facets of every single Morgan endeavor and thinks that trail riding may be the greatest therapy known to mankind.

    All of that said, it is essential that those in power or governance do all they can to be balanced, fair, objective, articulate and beyond reproach in the way in which they represent themselves and the organization they represent.

    The information presented on the website is not accurate. It is not members who need to declare themselves “show” or “USE”, it is candidates running for director. It is not members who need concern themselves with hoof length nor anything else associated with showing their horses, it is only candidates running for director and/or elected directors.

    Further, it is unnecessary, provocative and ill advised to discuss the election loss of people like Quigley, Hazelwood, Painter and so forth. It is not relevant to the conversation at hand and it does not serve us well. It is equally ill advised, in my opinion, to refer to “members who read internet list say blah, blah, blah.” I think we all know that the directors of the AMHA read various lists, as well as they should, in order to have the pulse of the membership. If they want to state that they have collectively or individually read comments relating to this matter, it would be a very different scenario and while I still think it ill advised, it would at least avoid hearsay, which is important.

    By the way, I firmly believe that the eventual intention of the GoMorgans group is to categorize members, as it was initially. At this point, however, the proposal is completely specific to those running for office and only those running for office. If the AMHA wants to post information, it is absolutely essential that it be accurate, honest and objective. Anything less is not only unseemly, it is also unfair and prejudicial. From a practical perspective, it also plays squarely into the hands of those who wish to portray the Association as unethical and mean spirited.

    One of the really sad aspects of this current tempest is that we are moving forward to drawing invisible lines in the sand and losing focus on what really matters to our future health. The plain truth is that the Association does need to become more sensitive to the needs of the majority membership, we do need to celebrate and highlight all disciplines equally and we absolutely need to make sure that we listen intently, courteously and with open minds to all of our members, at least until they prove themselves unworthy of the courtesy.

    I firmly believe that that the majority of our members want nothing more than to be treated respectfully, impartially and with professional courtesy. We want an organization which is inclusive, embracing and run with total integrity and fiscal responsibility. We want assistance in marketing our breed, affordability in accessing our membership benefits and the belief that each of us; trail rider, show exhibitor, carriage enthusiast, back packer, breeder, each and every one of us has an equal voice in our destiny. Those who currently govern and those who are to govern need to do so with these objectives in mind and in heart.

    Leadership is not a given, it is a privilege. Embracing it requires that the individual rise to the occasion and provide an example for all who choose to follow.

    Susan Overstreet

  6. jmorse says:

    I think you’ll find that the intention is that unless you can qualify as a USE nominee, you would, by default be a show nominee because there isn’t any other category. And you can’t be a USE nominee if you compete in a Morgan breed show (never mind all that stuff about 4″ feet), unless it is ONLY with Sport horses judged by a non-Morgan judge (which is not defined, btw)

    But I see your point. It is poorly written as I have maintained all along.

    Here’s another one: what are you if you don’t own any Morgans but are an AMHA member who wants to run for the Board?

    Jeff Morse | Green Meads Farm | Richmond, MA
    Carriage Driving & Morgan Horses

  7. Vintage_Rider says:

    That’s a good one Jeff!
    Susan, I took this thread as tongue in cheek…. firmly…. because although we no longer have to declare which as a voter… it sure limits our ability to run for office, doesn’t it?

  8. nightmusicfarms says:

    I should probably have put the post in the other thread regarding this subject, but the point remains the same. The AMHA has an obligation to behave with complete candor, accuracy and professionalism in countering the GoMorgans proposal. Anything less is unacceptable and counterproductive.

  9. leslie says:

    “If the AMHA wants to post information, it is absolutely essential that it be accurate, honest and objective. Anything less is not only unseemly, it is also unfair and prejudicial.”

    I’m with you on this, although since they’ve been sued by this group, I’m not sure it would make sense to just treat them as an unbiased group of concerned members.

    I do have to say, I’m kind of annoyed by the current board’s handling of the election. The ballot includes the board’s recommendations on how to vote, which just seems really inappropriate. I’m also pretty annoyed that I received a separate postcard from AMHA on the same day as the ballot advising me to vote against 3. Really? You couldn’t find anything better to do with our membership dues than spend $0.28 per member to sway votes? That doesn’t help instill confidence that the current board is making the best decisions.

    Oh well.

  10. nightmusicfarms says:

    I agree with you fully, Leslie and don’t think it appropriate that the actual ballot show any bias whatsoever.

  11. colwilrin says:


    I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the categories of “Show” and “Use” do not apply to all membership.

    A candidate’s classification is based upon what they are doing in the calendar year they are nominated. Therefore, any member considering running must classify themselves as of the beginning of the year. Members need to be mindful of their activities if they even have a thought of running.

    Also, the membership will naturally split when trying to identify with a director. As it is now, when I have a concern or question, it is clear who I call: My Regional Director. This is determined by where I reside. Since the person is from my region, I have the good fortune to know this person and we share a rapport which enables me to openly and comfortably discuss issues. With the proposed structure, it is entirely possible (likely probable) that I will not have met any of the BODs. It is possible that my region will not have a familiar face on the board.

    This brings me to my point of membership splitting. When I have a future issue, I will have to choose some BOD to contact. If I don’t have a regional rep, I will naturally choose someone who I think has a sympathetic ear. I will identify with some director, most likely in the “SHOW” category. So, by default…I will consider myself a “SHOW” member even though I do not fit that description nor am I compelled to choose. Others will do the same. This sets up a distinct “two party” system of membership/voting. As from your above post, you also see this danger and agree that it is harmful to the AMHA. I think we just disagree about the ability of the BOD, as a collective, to fight to prevent this divide. You think it is losing objectivity. I think it is their duty as fiscal guardians.

    Regarding the “Limbo” category. Some people have said that it was the intention of the plaintiff’s that those not qualifying for “USE” fall into the SHOW category by default. What that tells me is that the plaintiff’s crafted a category “USE” tailored to fit their candidates and guaranteeing the plaintiff’s contingent 5 seats on every board. The fact that a large and significant group of the membership (AOTS) fall through the cracks shows me that outside their defined group they have little care about anyone else. How in the world is that BALANCED? How can the AMHA not speak up against leaving AOTS hanging in the breeze?

    Regarding voting suggestions: It has been my experience that many corporations include BOD suggestions. In fact, my financial planning institutuion and the many corps that my holdings are in routinely send me ballots with their suggestions included. If the corps holding all my retirement money do this for their clients, I am surely not upset that a corp holding $70/per year of my money would do the same.

    If #3 were a viable solution, I would question the BOD vocal opposition. However, it is poorly written and ill-conceived. The BOD is made up of some very saavy business people. It would be fiscally irresponsible for them to sit by and not inform the membership that this plan is NOT FEASIBLE.

    Finally…I am not sure if it was the postcard, but one of the documents sent regarding “vote no” was paid by individual members, not from our dues. However, if the postcard was paid for by AMHA…I don’t mind that $0.28 of my money was spent to try and keep the breed united.

  12. smskelly says:

    Hi Leslie – the AMHA directors paid (personally, from their own pockets) to print and mail the postcards. No membership money was used for that at all.

  13. StacyGRS says:

    the postcard states on it that it was paid for by the AMHA board members, not AMHA.
    I agree that the AMHA needs to stay ‘above level’ (:) in this or they give these people fuel for their fire. I am sure there is huge frustration that they twist things and spout untruths about whatever they’d like that gets the same effect of “the sky is falling”, but, I think AMHA, and the member to stay in proactive mode, not re-active mode. This all changes so frequently and, with the internet, the conversations flow so continually that there is always something AMHA could react to, but they need to keep their eyes on what the goals are and let these folks hang themselves when given rope. I believe they will.
    There are most certainly flaws in the association, but, when people force everyone to take a side, people stop looking at the flaws of the side they’ve been forced to go to, all too often. We’re pretty smart…leave us alone and we’ll see the flaws, but force us to make allegiances and before you know it we’ll be defending those flaws…human nature.
    I just hope when the election is over the AMHA can stop putting out fires and get to work on things that benefit us, not just save us.
    ps…for much the same reasons as you stated, Susan, I am not for lifting the limit of terms served. Generally, it is not an issue, and I think it may give the perception of directors for life…and all too often perception is reality. If it’s not an issue, I say leave it and don’t fight the battle.

  14. leslie says:

    That’s good to know. Still seems like a bad strategy, though. If you look at it from the perspective of someone who wasn’t familiar with the proposal and the surrounding drama, it gives the appearance of the board desperately pushing back against something that a group of members wants.

    I should clarify that the directors could burn a pile $100 bills, video tape it and post it to YouTube and I still wouldn’t vote yes on #3. The proposal outlines an organization I’m simply not interested in being involved with, regardless of the alternative. But this whole thing has made me question the status quo for the first time, so I guess the yes on 3 folks can take that to the bank.

  15. nightmusicfarms says:


    I think you may be misinterpreting my comments. Let me try again, in shorter form.

    I disagree in total with the GoMorgans activity and the people behind it.

    I agree that the BOD should absolutely fight it and do so publically and openly.

    I believe that the original intent of GoMorgans was to classify members and I still believe that is their underlying goal.

    If this proposal fails, I firmly believe there will another round of attacks and issues from these people. I personally think we should exhaust all legal remedy to see if we can etically

  16. nightmusicfarms says:

    Sorry, accidentally sent.

    To see if we can ethically and objectively remove any member found responsible for multiple litigations which are routinely denied or found frivolous.

    All of that said….

    The AMHA has the absolute responsibility to be factual, objective, fair and accurate in any information disseminated. The website posting is inaccurate, period and it should,in my opinion, be taken down until it is corrected. The examples given do not pertain to general members, they pertain to director candidates only.

    I also feel that the ballot itself should be completely impartial, regardless of whatever supporting literature is offered or sent in conjunction or in advance.

    I don’t think it appropriate at all to refer to hearsay regarding information sympathetic members may have heard or read on various lists.

    I don’t think it relevant, advisable or fair to reference election losses of the GoMorgans people.

    The behavior of this group is appalling, in my opinion. I, however, don’t belong to it and every further disgusting action by them serves to dig their hole a bit deeper. I DO, however, belong to the AMHA and my non-negotiable expectation is that the AMHA behave with complete propriety, integrity, honesty and objectivity, regardless of the provocation.

    Susan Overstreet

  17. snerland says:

    I have just finished reading “The Members Speak” section of http://www.gomorgans.net. I think that everyone on this blog needs to read the latest emails listed. Many of them do have a point on the direction the breed is going. I’m afaid I have to agree with their concerns as I am continuing to have a harder time selling my Morgans. I used to not have any trouble selling my horses as I sold them as “general use” horses with beautiful heads, conformation, and above all a sane attitude. If the buyer wanted to show then he could but most of my horses were sold as family pets. I can’t even give any away right now. I have three foals coming this spring. I want them to go to good homes, not necessarily show homes. Anyway, please read the last two postings from the above section. It is food for thought.

  18. nightmusicfarms says:

    Hi Snerland:

    Do you mean Sue Martin’s “BALANCE” post and Painter’s “Mercy/Justice” deal? I have a lot of respect for Sue and think that she really tries to behave as she describes. I have no idea what Painter is talking about at all, though…

    Are these the two you meant?

  19. colwilrin says:


    “To see if we can ethically and objectively remove any member found responsible for multiple litigations which are routinely denied or found frivolous.”

    I am with you 100% on a way to remove status, deny membership, and/or preclude business dealings with any member who knowingly and purposefully causes damages to the AMHA, morgan horses (this includes animal abuse), or fellow AMHA members.

    Again, I respectfully disagree with your position on the AMHA stance. I understand your position, and if the suit were a single incident and if I felt the proponents agenda looked beyond old personal grudges and was in the best interests of the breed, I would be inclined to agree with you. However, IMO this situation is different. I prefer the BOD to express an opinion in the current situation.

    SNerland. The AMHA is not the reason breeders are having difficulty selling. The market is down everywhere. Every breed, every division, every horse breeder is experiencing the market downturn. This is true for all “hobby” businesses. Ski resorts are hurting, dance/gymnastics clubs are folding, RV sales are nearly non-existent. People are spending their money on gas and electric, or trying to replenish the IRA account after the 2008 dive, rather than using it for pleasure/hobbies. With a sky-rocketing unemployment rate, and a recession, most people are cutting unnecessary spending. Unfortunately, horses generally fall into that category.

    I think the AMHA would have more time and resources to address the sagging equine market if it weren’t so tied up in litigation. Hopefully they will have time to concentrate on more positive goals, like promotion, in the new year.

  20. nightmusicfarms says:


    I understand and I appreciate the courtesy you express in disagreeing. I also want the BOD to express their opinions, I just want them to do it with total accuracy.

    One thing, though, could I please talk you into calling me “Susan”?


  21. StacyGRS says:

    I read the last couple of e-mails, as you requested. I do not see where the derivative action is going to change the concerns listed, nor those stated by snerland. I,too, sell Morgans as ‘using’ horses more often than you’d think. I’m not one to make every horse fit into a mold and some simply aren’t meant to be, or don’t want to be, show horses. We get them broke to be useable in trail riding, generally, and sell them to them as such to the public. Most of those people, the ones that answer the ads and come see the horses, have not been, in the slightest, effected by the Morgan show ring. They haven’t read TMH, TMC, or the internet sites…their are looking for a trail horse…not necessarily a Morgan. It’s generally our good luck that they look for a Morgan after that, because the ones that like them, usually love them. The ones that find them being alert scary, want one with it’s head down by the ground, or want one that requires little to no attention except when the required 4 hour Sunday ride comes up every few months don’t usually fall for the Morgan. But the ones that enjoy the personality, embrace the intelligence, appreciate the soundness, and want to enjoy the horse usually fall for the Morgan and find the breed irresistable after that. AMHA, the show ring, the magazines, etc don’t make a bit of difference to these people, in my experience. I do not believe that there aren’t changes AMHA could and should make. But putting a certain number of slots on the board that have to be filled by people that may or may not be the best ones for the job, but fit the prerequisites is,IMO not a positive change. And if twisted truths and misguided statements are offensive, I can tell you that some of the people actively involved in this action are NOT a positive change either. IMO…anyone or anything filled with the venom and ugliness that I’ve seen and heard, the glee over show ring drama and the desire to use it to further a cause, the wallowing in negativity CANNOT lead towards anything positive. I just firmly believe that. People and groups that make a difference don’t spend their time putting others down and pointing out flaws, they spend their time figuring out ways to make what they can control better and raising the bar, not lowering the standards of the front lines in a war.
    Personally, I have some very straightforward things I’d like to see different…
    I think a simpler and less divisive change would be to go the opposite direction of one of the proposals…limit terms to 2 consecutive. Every election allow all of the people who have finished their 2nd consecutive term to run for 1 position, that one of them will be elected to, that allows a third. That way, we have some continuity as there’s always 1 person on the board in their third term. Everyone else gets 2 terms and they have to sit one out. Doesn’t divide the membership, keeps a rotation of new blood, maintains some continuity, and it’s simple. No room to argue whose horse had a foot longer than 4″ last year, etc. If we find that there just aren’t enough people running, then re-adjust.
    The magazine will never please everybody…it can’t. I say let the Network be sent out free, 6 times a year, include some general articles, no horse ads except for the free classifieds it now has, get some outside sponsors (Oster, Purina, whatever), make it informative, educational, relevant to the breed on the whole and free with membership. Then, have a Morgan Horse show magazine separately, that isn’t funded thru AMHA, doesn’t reflect the feelings of the AMHA, is advertiser based, and is received by subscription only.
    I really believe the on line registry should be either cheap to the members ($20 or less per year) or free to members. And I think it should be cheap to non-members ($25/year or so). If someone that isn’t a member has interest in a Morgan, Morgans, whatever, I say let them have access to all of it and see if we can’t turn that small curiosity into a desire to become a Morgan owner and AMHA member.
    I think AMHA could and should look at the products that some of the other breeds have for people to buy…I’d buy Christmas gifts with Morgans on them if we had the beautiful ornaments, lamps, scarves, etc that some of the other breeds have. My Christmas shopping could = fund raising for AMHA! Putting Morgans on things in people’s homes is just one more way to get these horses in people’s living room and in their hearts.
    These are things that, IMO, could help get some breed promotion and make people feel like they’re getting their money’s worth from their membership. I’m sure there are logistics to many of these ideas that make them harder than they sound, but, I think new ideas being looked into lead to feasible ideas to be put into practice. Sorry…this went from an answer to a term paper! But, IMO, voting in bylaw change no. 3 is not going to achieve anything positive…will it get change? Yes. But, in my experience saying things can’t get worse is an invitation for Murphy’s Law to rear it’s ugly head!!!

  22. nightmusicfarms says:

    Stacy, great post and great suggestions. I support every single one of them and really like the term limit/rotation you brought up.

    I want to see an organization which actively embraces every single aspect of Morgan interests, from trail riding to show jumping to carriage to Park horses and back again. In a way, I think this brutal economy could work in our favor, because it really does bring it all back to basics. The discretionary dollars are way down and now is the time to really market our Morgans as trail companions, best friends and (relatively) cheap to enjoy outside of the show ring. Further, it may be a great chance to really emphasize Play Days, local low pressure shows, fun neighborhood shows, whatever.

    I worry quite a bit that the vast majority of our members may feel caught between a rock and a hard spot; not supporting the lunatic fringe but not feeling well represented by governance widely perceived to be “show oriented”. (Won’t go down the same path again, but this is one of the reasons I am so focused on the manner in which the AMHA conducts itself relative to the proposals.)

    At any rate, we have so many opportunities to make sure we are a collective, embracing organization. I would love to see each director and the Ex Dir have a website in which they answer questions, talk about their regions, interface directly with the members and so forth. Would love to see each of them support their local clubs with visits and I know many of them do this already.

    Would love to see the proposed “Grievance Committee” become a more positively oriented “Members Exchange” or “Ombudsmen”, a place where folks could bring concerns and be assured that they would get a courteous, timely response.

    I so hope the proposals are defeated and when and if they are, the governance of the AMHA and each of us as members work diligently to make our Association a strong, vibrant, welcoming body for every single lover of the Morgan horse.

    Maybe you want to run for Director? :)

  23. jmorse says:

    Colwilrin: “I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the categories of “Show” and “Use” do not apply to all membership.

    A candidate’s classification is based upon what they are doing in the calendar year they are nominated. Therefore, any member considering running must classify themselves as of the beginning of the year. Members need to be mindful of their activities if they even have a thought of running.”

    Susan’s point was that not all members will be or need to be classified for the purposes of AMHA membership. You are correct: if you *do* want to be a candidate, you would need to not violate the criteria of your classification for the entire year in which you are nominated. I only mention this point of clarification because there has been so much confusion on this since the Plaintiff’s changed their original proposal.

    Jeff Morse | Green Meads Farm | Richmond, MA
    Carriage Driving & Morgan Horses

  24. If you look at the dates of the posts on gomorgans, the last (most recent) two posts were by Ms. Perlee and Ms. Moser. Those were the ones snerland was referencing.

  25. StacyGRS says:

    those were the 2 I read…

  26. colwilrin says:


    Sorry that I added to the confusion. Technically it only applies to those considering a run. My point was forward-looking. Perhaps I should have said that it will impact each member or unintentionally apply to each. Once a two-party system is created, it will become status quo to think of a morgan person in terms of SHOW and USE. If we are identifying our BOD as such, it won’t be long before it extends out to their barn-mates, friends, supporters and teams (whether accurate or not). Members will begin to think of themselves as one or the other. Not a good thing for versatility or unity.

  27. nightmusicfarms says:


    I think we have reached perfect consensus. I completely agree with your assessment and think that is the true risk in the proposal.


  28. colwilrin says:

    BTW…read the submissions on gomorgans.

    There is danger in having a larger base…more throw away horses. In my area, the majority of the weekend warrior, family backyard, pleasure owners pick their horses up at the local auction. Because so many have QHs and dabble in backyard breeding, by sheer volume our local auction horses are 90% QH. This equates to a larger percentage of QHs ending up in the slaughter houses. I personally know one group of 20-30 riders who buy horses at auction, ride them into the ground, and bring them back to the auction when they break…or if they just want a change. They don’t care where it goes next.

    Personally, I’d rather not see Morgans as the breed of choice for uninformed and irresponsible owners. I enjoy the fact that with one or two phone calls you can generally find out enough about the person you are selling to or buying from to feel comfortable with the purchase. It fosters a safer environment for our horses in the long run.

  29. jmorse says:

    colwilrin: “Sorry that I added to the confusion.” No problem. I think it is important that the facts be crystal clear as people are making up their minds on how to vote.

    Jeff Morse | Green Meads Farm | Richmond, MA
    Carriage Driving & Morgan Horses

  30. StacyGRS says:

    Susan…NO! I do NOT want to be a director:) But, thanks anyway! It is more than thankless and one more way to put yourself out there to the wolves…I think I’ll pass.

    I like your idea about the interactive web pages!!


  31. nightmusicfarms says:

    It does not to be thankless, Stacy. I am thinking about and am trying to convince Jeff as well.

  32. StacyGRS says:

    well, good luck to you both and I’ll do anything I can to help you…from out here:):)

  33. ellen dibella says:

    I have been trying to puzzle out how the definitions of “show” and “use” might apply to me personally. In the past 38 years, I have served on the AMHA board, the GN show committee, my regional board (Circle J), my regional show committee(Circle J), and I currently serve as a member of the USEF board of directors representing the Morgan breed. I would have thought that I would fit the definition of the “show” category but as I read it carefully, I do not.

    I have done and continue to do lots of things with my Morgan horses in all these years that have nothing to do with the show ring. I do not like to be categorized as I have found that the Morgan horse can indeed do almost anything except pass up horse treats! I stand the retired Morgan stallion, Holiday Compadre, and am currently very involved in promoting Western Dressage for Morgans as well as non Morgans. I have been a partner in a commercial Black Angus cattle ranch and have used my Morgans on the ranch. Like many Morgan owners, much of my joy in these amazing horses is their ability and enjoyment of many different uses.

    I am not comfortable making assumptions about anyone’s intentions but I suspect that the proponents of this bylaw change would certainly consider me a “show” person. Despite this, the bylaw as written does not do this as best I can determine.

    I would welcome any input. Thanks from Ellen

  34. empressive says:

    I got the little card in the mail sameday as I got the ballot. I understand that the card is AMHA Board paid and not dipping into the AMHA funds, plus look at politicians and their own propoganda. But I will admit that not of the choices were particularly enticing. I read through the #3 bit and some of the stuff therewas useful persay, but this “Show/Use” is a real troublemaker. Why are “they” so intent on keeping it? Why not revise this and at least give some of the other ideas a chance to pass?

  35. Trisha says:

    I agree, I think by eliminating “show/use” from the proposal, the plaintiffs would have a far more positive response to the proposal. There are aspects that ALL morgan people may think are good ideas, but it’s all been fuzzed out by the show and use aspects of the proposal. And if you read everything on gomorgans.net, they believe this proposal will make AMHA a happy balanced place. Only problem is that should this pass, we will never have a happy and balanced board especially if the people on the board are extreme in their show or non show position (and since it would be a nationwide vote, the latter sounds likely to me). One group will always have the upper hand depending on who is director at large.

    I’d like to believe that these two groups could work out their differences should this pass, but I’m not holding my breath. I have been reading a few places (there aren’t many that I’ve found) that members are pro-#3 and some of them are completely anti-show horse and believe they all look like saddlebreds (yeah, some do… but most do not). How can someone objectively vote on show related issues when they completely resent the whole group? I certainly hope that should this pass we have happy mediums of show and “use” people that aren’t blinded by their own views… but once again, not holding my breath.

Leave a Reply