LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
From the cutters . . . . to the editor!  

All About Cutting welcomes your "Letters to the Editor" with your opinions on any subject pertaining to cutting. However, no bad language will be printed. It is not necessary to identify yourself.

LETTERS REGARDING TEDDY ROBINSON ARTICLE:

Dec. 2, 2011
Glory Ann Kurtz:
After reading the onesided article on Ted Robinson where Ted blames me for being the cause of his problems I would like the opportunity to submit this rebuttal. I did feel the article lacked the balance of hearing both sides of the issue. The only other person whose quotes were included has never run for or been on the NRCHA Board.
As far as Kathy Gould's brief comments,I don't believe you let Kathy know the depth of this article with Ted or what was said as I'm sure she would have been able to address more of his claims and allegations. She was simply asked about her vote in the recent board meeting - not the entire issue.

Sincerely,
Lyn Anderson

Dear Editor,
I have served on the NRCHA board for 20 of the past 23 years serving as both vice president and President for approximately 10 of those 20 years. I was also head of the NRCHA Nominating Committee this year and looked over the Nomination forms in accordance with our by-laws. The nominating committee came back with a 3 to 2 vote to accept all nominees except for Ted Robinson due to his felony conviction for tax evasion. NRCHA By-Law Article IX Section 3. "The Nominating Committee shall review all correct nomination forms received by it in accordance with Section 2 of this article. In sufficient time for ballots to be prepared and mailed in accordance with this section, the Committee will, by investigation, personal interview and deliberation, formulate its own list of nominees and submit it to the Board of Directors. The recommendations of the Nominating Committee upon approval by a simple majority of the Board of Directors shall be final."

The committee recommendation was then sent to the next board meeting, There was much discussion on whether a person with a felony conviction should be allowed to serve on our board and what precedent we would be setting for the future. It was not until 2009 that a nominee had to disclose a felony conviction and this was the first time it has been brought to the board. Ted says there have been other board members with felony convictions serving as President but that does not make it right or what this board decides is in the best interests of our organization today in 2011. We only recently in the past 10 years have had a cash reserve and that deserves a new set of rules to go along with the added responsibility the board has not to lose these reserves. The most important thing on my mind is what precedent we are setting for the future. If any person with a felony conviction were allowed to be on the ballot it would be next to impossible to keep the next person with a felony conviction of any kind off of our ballot. I never talked to any board member about this issue except in a board meeting, the votes cast were independent votes based on their own knowledge and expertise.

Your article states Ted helped the NRCHA out of bankruptcy twice but the truth is he is partially responsible for at least one of those near bankruptcies. Scott Clark came on as Executive Director in 1995 and by the time he left around 2001 we were in the hole $300-400,000. A part of that was due to having the Worlds Greatest Horseman at the Lazy E ranch in Oklahoma and signing an extended contract there when it was evident this was not an event that could stand by itself after the first year. Ted was Vice President and head of the executive committee responsible for finances the last years of Scott Clark's time as Executive Director and I called him many times with concerns I had over the financial statements that were handed out at board meetings or many other red flags that were going on at that time. I was told not to worry, all was going well and my concerns were an over reaction. Another executive committee member told me "just let him (Scott) run with it, he's doing great". We had a lazy board then and that is why it is so very important to not let history repeat itself. The first two years I was on the board Ted was President and it became clear that ideas differing from Ted's were not appreciated. Anyone with a new idea was often belittled and ignored. One time a Non Pro member wrote a letter of concern to the entire board over a NRCHA policy, when it was brought up at the next meeting Ted said he had read the first sentence than had thrown it in the trash. This was not an isolated incident.

Since the early 2000's when Carol Rose came on the board as Sponsor Committee chairman she has worked to make and keep this Association solvent and prosper. Our purses grew incredibly fast due to the corporate Partners and other Sponsors she has brought to the NRCHA. As to the claim that the NRCHA needs an Executive Director we have had an Executive vice president that was fired, 3 other Executive Directors, 2 that we knew quickly that they were not working out and the third was when we did nearly go bankrupt and had alot of 'lost' money. Since we have had Pro Management managing our office we finally are run like an association should be and at a cheaper cost than we could get anywhere else. A few years ago one of our businessman board members did a cost analysis of having our own office here in California or keeping the services of Pro Management and it came out we were getting one heck of a deal when compared to running our own office. Some of our horse trainers don't really know how much work it is to run this association and think it can be done with very little overhead and time. Those days are over. I am not an office worker either but I did do the NRCHA horse show points on a volunteer basis for several years and know they are extremely time consuming even back when we had a tenth of the total shows we have now.

Ted's claim that my opinion that a person with a felony conviction should not be allowed on the ballot is personal and I am the one to blame for all his problems, is not a surprise and I expected this from him as he has shown himself to be petty and vindictive at times and if you cross him you will pay. I don't care if it is my best friend or my grandmother, I don't think we should start the precedent of allowing members with felony convictions onto the ballot. However it is just my opinion and one vote just like it has always been. When Ted found out who had voted against him he called at least one of those board members and berated them on their answering machine within an hour of our last board meeting. We have confidentiality agreements within our board meetings but it doesn't seem to matter to some. Bringing a board members spouse into a complaint against a board member makes no sense and is totally out of line when that person has nothing to do with the boards decisions.

Lastly I would like to compare my success in the horse industry the past few years with Ted's in LAE's, horse show classes, and overall in National, World or Regional Championships and Reserves so if I am not a success lately than neither is he. He seems to think if you haven't won a million dollars you don't know the industry or your ideas can't be solid. Every person on the current board is successful and willing to serve the NRCHA, not try and tear it down. This organization is made up of lots of parts from the big name trainers and owners to the Non Pros or Open trainers who bring a show horse once every 2 years, every single one is an important part of this great organization and I won't forget that.

Lyn Anderson

LETTER REGARDING NCHA:

Nov. 28, 2011
To Mr. Merritt,
A definition for "self-licking ice cream cone" can be found below courtesy of wikipedia. You will most likely ask why the NCHA shouldn't be a self perpetuating system. The NCHA exists because of its membership and is responsible to that same body.

It is hard for me as an American to see any organization that I am part of as anything but a microcosm of our form of government. The value of the association is based upon the value brought to the members, not the executive committee, sales or to enrich unscrupulous trainers. When a member based organization veers off the course of finding value for its members it should be corrected.

In the case of the NCHA there is "goodness" in the organization that can and should be saved. This goodness is built on the enjoyment of cutting and the industry that it supports. Please do not read my post as anti-wealth or business. There should be money made from the enterprise and there should be value in breeding these horses. It should not be choked by ridiculous rules, committee decisions, ethically bereft dealings on behalf of sales personnel and a select elite that do not have your best interests at heart. If you don't see these things yet then wait a while and you will. I am interested in finding a way to make it better and perhaps by refuting my points in your next well-researched response you can show us a way that would add more or better value to the organization. Although I don't want to be responsible for ruining another week night.

In political jargon, a "self-licking ice cream cone" is a self-perpetuating system that has no purpose other than to sustain itself. The phrase appears to have been first used in 1992, in "On Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones," a paper by Pete Worden about NASA's bureaucracy.

To Mr. Allen,
Please see the Lainie Whitmire case and you will see what happens when you speak out against the NCHA. Some of us don't have the money to defend our membership rights against the association in court. Her case showed us that the NCHA is willing to cross almost any line to defend its self interest. Did you feel better personally knowing that she and her husband we persecuted with draconian methods to defend your rights as a member as they claimed? It should be noted that the NCHA was not kept in check because almost no one cared enough to stand up for another fellow member and by doing so we ok'd another hit by the executive committee. Make no mistake, what happened to her can happen to anyone. When an organization denies you basic constitutional rights (false imprisonment and freedom of speech) and walks away clean you should take notice. Straight out of a Judge Roy Bean courtroom. Ms Kurtz took the time to educate us all on this topic and she should be commended for her efforts.

To everyone else,
What the NCHA represents is one of the greatest past times in our country's history. It is worth finding a way to bring back its greatness from the patina of greed and moral bankruptcy, I meant this letter to be a call to action for those who are willing and able to make changes to bring it back to its former glory. There are many honest people in this business that truly lead christian lifestyles and don't just wear the t-shirt, but all too often they are crushed by those who don't.

I may not see things correctly and would welcome a rebuttal that shows me what I wrongly perceive to be the case. The slide began at the peak of the association, buried under the unprecedented membership gains and sales numbers were the foundations of apathy, greed and the Chicago style politics that seem to have been in vogue everywhere lately. Most of all thank you for your time and consideration in reading the letter and voicing your opinions.

Name Withheld by request

LETTER TO THE EDITOR,

Nov. 12, 2011
Following are just some thoughts on what could be done to help cutting, thank you for all you do to help on a daily basis by running this site!!

NEWS FLASH FOR THE NCHA - THE ECONOMY STINKS AND THE HORSE MARKET IS 2 FT DEEP IN MANURE; WHAT COULD THE NCHA DO TO HELP?

1) Create a secondary market for cutting horses.The single most effective way to encourage membership growth, honesty among trainers and sales companies, enjoyment for members and a turn around in horse prices is to find a way to sponsor events which are not run like the current NCHA events.

What do I mean by this? Our industry has decided that a certain set of bloodlines which lead to physiologically small, hot-tempered horses, is conducive to the creation of a good cutting horse. This eliminates the majority of these horse from competing in events outside of cutting, therefore rendering the horses useless once they have failed to become the next Futurity winner. It also discourages newcomers from purchasing a horse when they know that only the $75,000 and above horses noted by their trainers who require $1-1.5k per month are worthwhile. If the horse cannot be judged to be good at the same standard as the World Finals horse, then they are damned to irrelevancy. This leads to a discouraged membership base and a lack of enjoyment amongst their ranks.

How it can be fixed: Cutters want to cut, not team pen, rein, team rope or ride western pleasure. Riders who participate in the aforementioned events don't want to ride horses that are small and hot.Therefore, these are not to be seen as desirable secondary markets. Baseball, Football and Car racing provide a blueprint for what can be done to fix this. Create a minor league event, and no, weekend cuttings are not what I mean. Weekend cuttings have turned into "the richest man rules" and everyone else be damned. What we need is a cutting event that is judged against a different point scale where 2nd tier horses and riders can compete and have fun. Most who cut enjoy the "feel" of cutting and would respond well to (an) event that lets them feel good about being there and yet does not crush them when their horse cannot win after they paid 500 dollars to enter and another 500 in gas and trainers fees.

This is not hard and could be done quickly. What would it create? A secondary market where horses that don't make the big leagues could continue on and not be sent to the pasture and irrelevancy.

2) Encourage honest trainers. Create a feedback system that can be monitored by the NCHA that tracks dishonest and cruel training practices. See NCAA (not the best example but at least they try), Pro Football, Pro Basketball, Olympics and almost every other major sport.

What do I mean by this? Most people coming in are easily taken by the trainer with a kind smile and a tale, they don't see the knife at their back (read wallet). These practices will almost always lead to a loss of another new member and a lot of their money. Trainers should not be given a free pass. The military lives by a code which encourages integrity (read doing the right thing when no one is looking). Why should trainers who are responsible for the owners horse and his/her well being not be held to a standard which rewards honest practices and discourages abusive training practices and cheating. What makes the trainer any less accountable than the rest of us at our day to day jobs? How many have gone to a trainer had a bad, often times irrecoverable, experience and then found out that the same thing had happened to 50 people before them?

How can it be fixed: There needs to be a warning system for this type of practice. Try a feedback board or NCHA star rating system. Trainers should be given the right to respond and defend themselves I am not encouraging a one way street, but we need something to hold people accountable.

3) Encourage a free market approach to sales at NCHA events. Create a sale that doesn't monopolize the NCHA events and charge a rate that most consider usury in the outside world.

How can this be fixed: :Let another sale company come in and compete for business at NCHA sponsoired events and stop the self licking ice cream cone that is Western Bloodstock. Their practices are suspect at best and criminal at worst. If the others do the same then at least there was an attempt to provide some semblance of a free market system.

Why must all this be done?

Name withheld on request
Texas

SHOCKED AT WHITMIRE COURT DECISION
Aug. 17, 2011
Dear Glory,
I was shocked that NCHA was awarded attorney's fees for the lawsuit Paula Gaughan had against them. Wow, I can't believe that the outcome was in favor of NCHA (A Publicly Sponsored Organization) and that they can keep all of that information secret! Makes me want to send in my NCHA card and tell them to stick it.

Another item I can't believe is NCHA's attorney's fees of $75,000 for a how many years worth of fighting? I don't know how many other people are upset with that verdict, I know I am. There should not be anything that the NCHA members cannot have access to regarding anything to do with the entire organization. I don't get it!
Unsigned

Aug. 13, 2011
Letter in response to request for opinions on the 2011 NCHA Summer Spectacular Sales:

Hi Glory Ann,
I had a comment or two. I guess I'm an optimist, because I think the sale was far stronger than I expected, and stronger than the comparable sales from last December (i.e., you need to exclude the select yearling sales and try and look at comparable sales of comparable horses).

When you talk about comparisons, what are you comparing it to? The best comparison is with last year's summer sale, because the summer sale(s) are peculiar to the time of year. I think the summer sale represents a time when people are giving up on certain horses in training (two year olds and three year olds), and it's very different than those same horses going through in December, or even at the spring sale.

I also generally think of the summer sale as more of a buyer's sale than in December. So I came expecting even better prices. I didn't find them. Instead I was pretty disappointed (as a buyer).

I was looking for yearlings, and I think it appropriate to compare the yearling prices with the prices I'd pay this coming December for the same horse (the difference in the horse is only a few month of growing time).

The older horses are simply dependent on the quality. So, pretty tricky to compare apples to apples.

On the Bar H dispersal sale, it was a pretty funny deal. The two year olds were not yet broke. So, they were way behind. That significant added risk would have to factor in a discount. The three year olds were also simply led through (not ridden), and what we were told was that they had some training, but they had been stopped last fall and put out to pasture or maybe rode a bit on the ranch. So, they were pretty much impossible to evaluate or get ready for any futurity. I would expect these to be heavily discounted off what they would have been worth if they were still at the ranch and in training with Paul and on track for the futurities.

I bought three yearlings at last December's sales, and I was looking to buy one to three at the summer sale. I was looking at very comparable yearlings for my program (and, again I was assuming I'd get better summer prices on comparable horses). I go to the auctions with my horses picked and with what I'm willing (and expect) to pay predetermined. Anyway, I was consistently outbid on my picks, and by a significant percentage over what I was paying in December.

I haven't done a formal comparison. But, if I was going to I would put my list of yearlings with similar sires next to my list for this sale, I think the prices would change dramatically. I was looking and Spoonfuls, Cats Meradas, and Sweet Lil Peptos specifically. There was a good selection of these yearlings sufficient to make a comparison (at least for me), and I was surprised.

I did end up with one yearling - but, just one. And I did buy a three year old (but, that was totally random and a snap decision deciding to take a risk and see what one of these horses dropping out of one of the top programs pans out - maybe not cutting it for a top open rider, but appropriate for a NP . . .).

Anyway, that was my impression. And, BTW, I do tend to be an optimist.

Cheers,

-Todd

GloryAnn
In your analysis of the Bar H dispersal results, to be fair,
i think you should point out part of, if not most of the reason the 2 and 3 year old horses sold so low. the horses (2 & 3) were not in training and were not well fitted for the sale due to unknown reasons (fitting possibly because of herpes virus outbreak?). since the 2's and 3's weren't trained, they were essentially just nicely bred horses, and i think sold for what they should have in that case, if not more.
Paul

Glory Ann
After 25 years experience with the NCHA and all the sales that have come and gone, I think it is pathetic that the NCHA is in bed with Western Bloodstock. I know they receive money in exchange for giving them exclusive rights to sales but I believe that could be done with any sale entity. These people will milk the cow dry and then move on to another better paying option. They have no interest in the NCHA or its well being. I have sold my last one there and will go to Triangle or Ardmore with less cost and the same outcome.
Unsigned

WERE THE GOOD OLD DAYS BETTER?
Glory Ann
Yeah the older trainers in some interviews have talked about how it was more fun when it wasn't for the big money. But now it's only for the millionaires. Shame. I remember back in the 90's some of the most enjoyable cuttings for us were little ones at Matlock's in Aubrey and similar shows. I think they may have been American and not NCHA. But lots of fun and not for the big bucks. Down here in AZ, like I suppose it is everywhere the classes are $300 and up if there is the smallest bit of added money. Unaffordable for the bulk of cutters. And that's just the entry fee let alone getting there, staying there, eating, stalls, and such. And then they try to stretch some to 4 days. By the fourth day the only ones cutting are the ones playing with house money. Ah, the good old days!
Unsigned

SHOULD NCHA PROVIDE A GROUP INSURANCE PLAN?
Glory Ann
Does it ever occur to anyone that all these charity/benefit occasions could be ancient history if NCHA WOULD JUST EXPLORE THE IDEA OF A GROUP INSURANCE PLAN. After all, we brag on 15,000 members . . any insurance co worth its salt would be slathering for our business. Grrrr.
Unsigned

RESPONSE TO CAROL HARRIS LETTER

March 25, 2011
Dear Editor,
I have great respect for Carol Harris. I have seen and also questioned these same concerns ad nasium.

I was fortunate to work for a great trainer in the 60's and 70's. He most likely showed horses to more AQHA Honor Roll Titles than
anybody. He was also a AQHA judge as well as one of the first judges and inspector for the APHA, his name John D. Cratty.

I often talk with John and we have remained close friends to this day. We have talked about the state of western pleasure horses as well as
HUS horses in AQHA classes in recent times, say since the mid to late
80's. It's a sad state of affairs. I asked John, when he was judging, "How can you tie a class of horses that look as if they are sired by the same sire, out of the same dam, trained or tortured by the same trainer and crippled by the same farrier".

I was told that though he disagreed with the way these horses looked etc. he was compelled to tie these classes or be blackballed as a AQHA judge. He, at the time made his living as a judge and to lose his AQHA card would have been economic suicide but he told me many times it would have been the "right thing" to excuse the entire class.

As for today, some of the high profile trainers have only these sorry looking WP and HUS horses, along with the "training techniques" to get these horses to look as they do, as a reference to win these classes. Sadly the times have changed and I fear will remain. I do place a huge blame for this on our Association for letting the judging of these classes and horses waver from the original intent and the actual rule book "rules".

I have left the rail classes of AQHA far behind, out of much disgust, and the horses like Jo Ellen Dun, Zion Sun King, Buckeye 3 Bars, Katrina Lee and Pecho Dexter are gone forever.

I was lucky enough to own the 2010 AQHA High Point Cutting Horse. I was lucky to find a old school trainer in Danny Moore to train this
horse and at this year’s convention's awards banquet, at my table was my friend John D Cratty, just sayin.

Tim Brady
Pipe Creek, Texas

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

A LETTER OF CONCERN TO AQHA MEMBERS FROM CAROL HARRIS

Feb. 24, 2011
Dear AQHA Members,
Once again I have made myself sit down and record some of my constant concerns that I would very much like for you to read. I only hope that you will try to remember that the past 57 years of my life have been closely involved with the development and success of the American Quarter Horse. Through these years I have witnessed changes and participated in many of them. Today I’m finding it difficult to not question some of the things we are doing or not doing. I desperately hope you will understand that my desire is not to be a “smartass”, I only wish to be able to help inspire us all to respect each other and do a little thinking together.

There is nothing that the American Quarter Horse cannot excel in if given the correct guidance and opportunity. To achieve this, our entire membership including our youth, has an obligation to read and respect our rule book and to follow every rule as written. Then most importantly, what we must have is an effective plan to absolutely make sure some group or someone in our association is accountable for enforcing these rules. This is something we have not accomplished. It is totally unfair that those of us who follow the rules must endure or get beat by those who ignore them. When we let this happen we have totally destroyed our level playing field. I have tried on many occasions to explain worries like this only to be politely told that “they hoped I was wrong.” I would prefer to be wrong than to be sure that I’m not.

In 1940 the AQHA was organized to collect, record and preserve the pedigrees of it’s breed. In our rule book there are four great statements describing their missions. They probably should have included a fifth mission to “protect their horses from abuse and inhumane practices,” however, at that time these worries possibly did not exist like they do today. Now 70 years later, with the problems that do exist, we must do more than just talk about these problems.

When I first got involved with quarter horses around l954, there was much enthusiasm and activity regarding their growing popularity. Like many others in the east, I fell in love with them and touted them to anyone who would listen. They became the topic of conversation of the entire equine world and no matter what anyone’s breed or discipline was, the American Quarter Horse became extremely fashionable to own, ride, show or race.

By the late 50’s, many of the prestigious midwest and eastern horse shows had started to include quarter horse divisions in their programs of events. Some of us were especially diligent and even convinced die-hard saddle horse and hunter/jumper shows, like Devon, to adopt all our classes including cutting and reining. Yes, we in the east worked hard for the quarter horse. We purchased thousands and thousands of these horses from our new cowboy friends which helped all the ranchers gain world respect for what they had created.

This lasted almost 20 years until the pleasure horse industry focused on their “powers of intimidation.” Some of our members seemed to love what they did and some hated it. Some, of course, are still oblivious to the whole thing. In spite of the many negative remarks that the outraged public showered on AQHA, all we have done is talk about it and today little has changed. For years now we have let our horses suffer unbelievably. Our youth have also watched it all happen and it’s sad that many of them have either dropped out or are now using many of the tricks themselves that they learned from their mentors. By now I’m sure you have probably heard enough, but please let me continue.

I know we have executives and many good committees providing leadership for our Assoc. Why don’t they want to show some inventive means of controlling what goes on behind the scenes where all the dirty work is done? Somehow we need to help one another acknowledge that quarter horse cruelty does exist and must be stopped. Is it possible that a routine form of punishment such as monetary fines be adopted for infractions? This could be an effective way to handle offenders and avoid lawsuits and lengthy hearings. If the world heard that we finally “woke up” and caught some offenders, we might not only help our horses but even be able to slightly relax our worries about the animal rights people.

Does everyone realize that most of our judges today are professional horse trainers? What else can we expect them to do but reward that which they created? Back in the late 60’s if we had only made our judges follow the rules, possibly none of this would have happened. What has become of our Horsemen? They should all know that abused and over-trained horses all look pretty much alike, yet we continue to let judges pin animals that reflect this kind of training. Our horses are being drugged, injected, tied up, tied down, tied around, laid down and left in the hot sun or in a dark stall. They have been tortured, all for the sake of winning and selling. Those who haven’t seen it, ought to. There are many occasions when our judges should have excused an entire class and sent them all out of the ring. I know that if I was still judging I would have done it. Then if a few other judges had followed suit, we could easily have avoided this entire problem. Of course some members today think our pleasure horses look fine. At least even I admit they do all look
alike - - - “crippled, tired, bored and sad.”

Our youth classes are dwindling. Do we feel we have given our youth riders a proper opportunity to learn what is correct? If so, why do we see signs of them losing interest? Perhaps they no longer like what they had been taught to do. Jerking and spurring may have become boring. Our youth that ride English have really never been given opportunities to learn correctly. We have no pony club activities like USEF children have, only some scattered riding lessons by a few trainers who know and recognize proper equitation. The popularity of most sports is helped by youth involvement.

Since the AQHA was created from a western heritage, most of our western classes are functioning quite well. All classes except Western Pleasure and Showmanship at Halter are respectful of their traditional purposes, but our entire English division is not faring well at all. If the AQHA wishes to encourage new members and growth, I think they need to make a strong effort to promote this entire division. I recommend that an experienced USEF director of English disciplines be welcomed to their staff to help organize and give energy to the many improvements that are needed.

AQHA needs to recognize that English disciplines “hunters, jumpers, dressage & equitation” represent “Big Business” and tremendous popularity throughout the world. When our association first included English classes, the response was huge and the entire division grew rapidly. Today it has faded to the point of embarrassment. Why? Because many of our trainer’s methods are so unorthodox and destructive to their entire purpose. Hunter, jumper and dressage people advocate functional performance with beautiful expression and obedience without intimidation. They do appreciate our horses’ lovely conformation and manners, but feel we have destroyed their natural willing desire to perform a difficult task. Even before this poor economy hit us, the USEF had backed down from showing and buying our Appx. horses.

I believe this is one of the saddest things we have let happen in recent years. We adopted a healthy booming division and allowed it to fizzle. Our Hunter Under Saddle classes are still quite popular with us, but the way they are being rewarded in competition provides no purpose for these horses to develop into hunters, dressage or any other type of sporthorse. They are merely one more creation that our trainers developed to resemble our pleasure horses.

On top of all this, was it sensible to add new classes that give valuable points to horses who basically only chase a cow into a pen, or gallop wildly while the rider shoots at a target? Wouldn’t we have shown more vision by trying to develop a large global market for well trained hunters, jumpers, dressage and driving horses that would showcase our true meaning of versatility?

My final concern is: “How long do you think it will take for the FEI officials to question our reining horses’ dead tails? What about all our other dead tails?” Since the World Equestrian Games, comments have already reached me from Canada and many from our country. What are we expected to say or feel about this matter?

Thank you very much for reading my letter. I was inspired by the excellent paper Jim Heird presented to us last year and have been terribly disappointed by so little follow up to what he discussed. If you feel I have shown too much concern, it’s only because so many others appear to show none at all. I am sincerely hoping that you will give us as an opportunity to help come up with some beneficial solutions. Please try to understand my deep feelings of loyalty to our entire association.
Sincerely,
Carol Harris

WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE LAND OF THE COWBOYS?

Dear Editor,
Feb.22, 2011
Texas the land of blue skies, large hats, cattle, horses, cowboys, a place where a handshake was better than a written contract, where bullies were not tolerated; how did it come to this?

How has a sport based on the American cowboy icon, rugged individuals who went their own way, unafraid of the unknown, spoke their minds freely, willing and even eager to fight for their rights against those who would oppress them (if you believe the popular television and movie images of the 1940’s and 1950’s) come to such a point in its existence that it will kick out those who disagree with it.

Why does management make it necessary to file suit to get access to financial data OUTSIDE of its offices? Why deny members the ability to have independent analyses of its financial data performed and to publish to the members at large the resulting analysis of its financials. There is no intent to make this personal. There are legitimate questions about how the member’s money is being spent. The only intent is to ensure that management isn’t running the organization into the ground with profligate (spending like drunken sailors on shore leave) or unwise spending, and/or cutting deals that may benefit insiders (not saying it is happening, because we can’t, we have no evidence either way). And yet, the very people who have modeled themselves on the “Don’t tread on me” flag and the iconic cowboy image of the past sit silently by and watch it happen.

We live in a time when people rail against government interference in their lives, rail against spending excesses, expect transparency in governance yet do nothing when bullies take issue with free speech of members, i.e. disagree with us and we will and can kick you out. When simple questions about spending are met with a stone wall and taking away long-standing approved show dates, thereby impacting an individual's business and quite possibly providing the potential for a lawsuit for tortuous interference with a business, as punishment for pursuing financial records the bullies don’t want us to see.

How can a membership tolerate obfuscation (avoiding direct and clear answers) by its managers? One example, when asked what Mr. Hooper’s salary is (at the last convention, if memory serves me), the answer was $X. Which was technically correct yet obfuscated the more important issue of his TOTAL compensation, which was probably a third higher (which is public record if you know where to look) (Guidestar.com publishes the tax returns of charitable organizations). Why the obfuscation? Were they ashamed of the compensation package? If so, why?

I do not get the dichotomy here. It is almost oxymoronic (read military intelligence, the old joke here). Why are people, who will go to the mats to protect their free speech rights and who espouse the above-mentioned cowboy code, not incensed by rules in the NCHA that say, and I paraphrase here, if you do or say anything that we the bullies who run the organization say is not in the best interest of the organization, we can and will take away your membership, sometimes your ability to make a living (although that is tenuous and could be challenged in most courts), and your ability to engage in a sport you may love and, at the least, enjoy as a hobby.

I believe it is in the best interest of everyone to have a totally transparent governance of the organization, to have open financial records and to vote openly in open meetings on issues that affect the membership and the organization. Why the secrecy? What is being protected? What is being done behind closed doors and in secret that has to be protected? Perhaps nothing, but that is not the appearance and we all know appearance is often more important than fact.

Personnel issues that deal with reprimand or dismissal may need to be kept under wraps, to avoid more lawsuits, but NOTHING else should be done or decided in secret. This is not national security. The NCHA is not charged with protecting us from terrorists. It is charged with running an organization that makes and publishes rules for showing cutting horses. Rules which allow people to participate in a sport they enjoy and often love and do it on a level playing field. For the life of me I cannot see any reason for secrecy to do this.

Also, Why do we have at-large directors based upon prior service? These people have NO accountability to anyone, certainly not the general members, and they have the right to vote. Is this really a good way to run a business?

And I certainly cannot see why I should give up my rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights to our Constitution to free speech, freedom of association, the right to confront my accuser and mount a defense if accused and the right to due process. More importantly I do not understand how people who keep espousing the ‘cowboy’ way will put up with management that abridges their right to free speech and freedom of association.

Unfortunately, I am reminded of an old political axiom. If you do not participate through the ballot box in deciding how your organization is managed, you probably deserve what you get. Approximately 2/3 (depending on who is doing the counting) of our membership is apathetic when it comes to exercising the right to vote. I just don’t get it.

Steve Warren

DRUG USE IN CUTTING HORSE EVENTS:

Dear Editor
It was interesting to read about possible Ethic Reform issues of the National Cutting Association in the Quarter Horse News back in 2009. I have pondered over the article reasonably prior to the writing about Ethics in the National Cutting Horse Association.

I participated in all classes of NCHA including the age events starting back in the late 1960's until the mid 1980’s. I had the give it up because of physical problems. However, what has always been a concern of mine is the ethics of the association, but more of a concern is the ethics toward NCHA allowing drug use in the horses.

At no time, that I am aware, has this issue been brought to the attention of the owners, sponsors, and trainers or to the public that just enjoy the sport. How many young horses have died because of drug use at the Futurity or other aged events? How many horses have been crippled by their owners or by the trainers because of drug use?
I question, do the Sponsors of NCHA allow drug use at there business? Do they close their eyes to the use of drugs on horses for the events they sponsor, and not for their own businesses and employees? I believe Fort Worth and their city employees would be included. Can they show up at work under the influence of drugs?

Why do AQHA, the State Racing Commissions and other well-known Equine Associations have a "no-drug use" policy and NCHA does not? Does NCHA have a drug policy for their employees?

How much are the total purses of the Aged Events, World Championship and Weekend shows? A horse could have received your share of the purse that was drug induced by its owner or trainer vs. your horse that was drug-free and was competing strictly on its normal ability and agility. There went a lot of money, but with current NCHA regulations, we will never know if drugs were involved.

I have always been amazed that when you open to the Table of Contents of “The Chatter," in small bold print, it says that NCHA is a proud member of the American Humane Society and the American Horse Council (AHC). Does the AHC ignore the use of drugs of their membership? Would that not be a good question to ask?

It is like everything else, you can get NCHA to have a drug policy in place and someone will find a way to cover it up. A drug policy would be good and if developed, it would be a long time coming. If you have ethics and ethical training for NCHA, it can part of the training to have a "no-drug" policy at all NCHA events - with testing. That way, we can see the ability and agility of a horse and not that of greed and abuse.

I wonder what are the guidelines of insurance companies are that insure these horses when the horses are injured and put down, and breathe their last breath as the result of the drug’s use in which NCHA allows?

The NCHA Code of Ethics: It could be a thick book. Could it include a Leadership Development Program as provided by the AHC?

Signed Feb. 23, 2010
OPPOSED TO DRUGS IN THE CUTTING INDUSTRY

TIPPING THE HELP:

Dear Editor
I would like to talk about the subject of "tipping the help." I have heard trainers tell cutters - especially the newcomers at the aged events - how they should tip the help, especially if they get a check in the run.

These are the reciprocally crooked parasites who use none of their own money to get there, stay there, play there or come home. And they also command a portion of the check should the owner's horse win one, while it costs them nothing if they lose all week long. So now the horse owner finally gets a check and he not only has to fork over part of it to his trainer in those trainer/rider classes, but now also "has to" tip the help if he gets a check in the owner/rider classes. Where does it stop????

The cartel has more gall than I have seen in a long time. They have the incredible nerve to tell the horse owner he is not finished spending money on the trainer community quite yet. Fees upon fees upon fees, and then percentages of checks and tips if they help someone. It is beyond disgusting. And they threaten you with banishment if you don't comply. "You won't be very well liked" or "it will be hard for you to get help in the future" etc. etc. Extortion. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be addressed and dealt with at the NCHA committee level.

You can go to certain private places of business and you will see signs "no tipping." In other words, they don't want the customers to be uncomfortable or unsure of what to do in the way of gratuities. So they clear it up quickly with the sign. No one is walking on egg shells. And they pay the help well enough to where the help is happy. How about a "no tipping" sign at the cuttings?? If the trainer doesn't want to help because he doesn't get a tip, then fine.

They talk about cutting camaraderie being one of the great aspects of cutting. Or did they confuse camaraderie with currency?

These are the dimensions to cutting as it exists today that run people off from the sport. They take the fun out of the sport. They alienate the membership and the backbone of the NCHA. And no one is talking about it. It's time for a cleanup once again!!

Signed Feb. 23, 2010
TIRED OF FEES, FEES AND MORE FEES

FROM THE EDITOR,

Recently I received a letter from Craig Morris, a cutting horse trainer, who was responding to my an article that I wrote and published on this site on March 2, 2009 titled "Is the NCHA Executive Committee Balanced? The article was regarding the fact that currently trainers hold 58 percent of the seats on the NCHA Executive Committee, with half of the members coming from the Southeast, six being non-pros - while no amateurs or businessmen or women are included.

Feel free to respond to this letter by e-mailing your response to me at glory@glorykurtz.com. If you prefer, I will not use your name.

Letter from Craig Morris

Glory Ann;

March 6, 2009
I like many other trainers have been sitting idly by for the last year while many Amateurs, Non Pros and now the Media goes on a trainer bashing frenzy. I will attempt to write a rebuttal to your article "The unbalanced make up of the Executive Committee" that is not full of stereo typical assumptions and is free from the hurt and anger that most trainers have felt from the latest round of trainer and trainer family bashing.

Let me start by asking you a question. Who do most ask for advise when purchasing a horse? Who do most ask for advise on what stallions to breed their mares to? Who do most ask for advise about what shows they should show in or what class their horse would be most competitive in? Who do most ask for advise about whether or not their horse is good enough to even warrant training? The burning question that needs to be asked is, who is the person that most Non Pros and Amateurs go to for guidance or to answer questions they have about their horse? The Trainer.....the person who possess the EXPERIENCE, KNOWLEDGE and EXPERTISE to help you make the most prudent decisions about your animal. Opps! Almost let my emotions get into the text.

This same person is also the person who has made their living and provided for their families by running a " HORSE TRAINING BUSINESS". This business also requires that you wear many hats. Horse trainer, investment advisor, vet, bookkeeper, cattle man, business manager, counselor, coach, truck driver, just to name a few. Most of the trainers that I have been aquatinted with over the past twenty five years in this industry are very intelligent, fairly well educated people who have a real passion and love for horses. They also posses that same passion and love for the industry that has helped to provide for their family's throughout the years. Most are at least second generation cutters while many many more are invested three and four generations deep to this great sport. They are not millionaires or captains of industry but they are professional horsemen who are knowledgeable about horses, the horse business and the sport that they compete in.

For you or anyone else to insinuate that we lack the intelligence, education, training or general wisdom to make decisions regarding what is best for the entire industry "that we have grown up in" is ridiculous. I do agree that guidance from CPA's, lawyers and other professionals are needed and gladly accepted. NCHA has an accountant on staff as well as an attorney on retainer who are at the disposal of the EC. I also agree that we need representation for all the members but to say that this cannot be accomplished with a majority of the EC being made up by trainers is not at all true.

Remember that we make a living by catering to all members of the cutting horse business and by maintaining a healthy diverse organization. Not all trainers compete in aged events, not all in weekends, some have amateurs and Non Pros and some do not. The mix of trainers that we currently have on the EC is definitely a cross section of the entire industry and do attempt represent the entire membership. Cutting is still HORSE BUSINESS and can be run by HORSEMEN.

I attempted to write this to you on "letters to the editor" but the links were not working. I hope this finds it way to your column.

Thank you,
Craig Morris
Professional Cutting Horse Trainer

(Following is response from the Editor)

Dear Craig,

I really appreciate your sending your letter to me and I will definitely post it. You are the first trainer who has responded to my article, other than Chubby, who sent word with a friend of mine that he was "educated."

My meaning may have been misconstrued, as I certainly did not intend that my statements should have been taken that trainers were uneducated. If so, what I really meant to say is that most trainers do not have the kind of education and experience to run a multi-million-dollar non-profit association. It’s definitely different from running a training operation. Doctors are well educated, but not many doctors have the education to run a large company.

With that in mind, yes, you are all very educated in what you do for a living - and most trainers do a very good job of it. I realize your job is all encompassing and you have to wear many hats to be successful. We all know that some trainers are successful - and some aren't. I'm certainly not lumping all trainers together, anymore than you can lump all customers or members of the NCHA together.

We all know that football players and coaches are very knowledgeable about football; however, I don't think they would be considered "educated" to run the NFL. The same goes for other sports, such as basketball, hockey, and even the PBR. In today’s specialized world, it takes a very “specialized” education or experience to take care of promotion, legal issues, contracts, financial investments, budgets, employees, etc, that go along with running a multi-million-dollar association. Each one of the above sports is run by businessmen.

However, when it comes to rules, that's something that trainers know a lot about and certainly they should have a major voice in the decision making.

What I was trying to convey was that the NCHA is no longer just a small association - it's the same as a multi-million-dollar company that its stockholders depend on to do the right thing for their investment.

Yes, you are correct - trainers are definitely professional horsemen who are knowledgeable about horses, the horse business and the sport that they compete in. Without the trainers, the sport of cutting would not be professional. However, like you said, trainers make their living and provide for their families by running a training business, but all this is made possible by the cutting horse industry and members of the NCHA.

In contrast, amateurs, non-pros and owners put money INTO the industry by buying the horses, paying the trainers and basically financing the association through membership fees, entry fees, and gambling their money by putting on shows. With their numbers greatly outnumbering the trainers, it wouldn't be possible for trainers to make a living without them. Don’t you think they should be equally represented in the decision-making body of the association? All facets and niche groups within this business need to try to work together. They all need each other to make this industry successful. I don't think its "us" and "them."

I'm sure your response will put a spark in other people who would like to express their opinions. I completely see your side of this argument - just like I see some of the non-pros’, amateurs’ and owners’ side of the argument. Most everyone sees a problem from their own niche or prospective, which is entirely normal.

I have no axe to grind - I'm only trying to convey what I hear day after day from various NCHA members - including amateurs, non-pros, trainers, owners and show producers. Bob and I don't show anymore and we no longer use trainers; this is not a personal thing. However, we have done all of those things for years, so we basically do know what goes on.

I am sorry that you didn’t get through to put your letter on my site. I am in the midst of making upgrades to my website which will give readers a much easier way to post their opinions or letters – as I think that is very important. It should be done the first or second week in April. However, I will tell you that I can count on my fingers (one time around) the number of people who are willing to sign their name to a criticizing posting. They feel they will be "dealt with" if they express what they feel. All the years I was with Quarter Horse News, I had that same problem. I think that is sad.

Thanks again for your letter, Craig. I appreciate it and admire you for standing up for what you believe.

Glory Ann Kurtz, Owner/Editor
www.allaboutcutting.com

Response from Craig Morris

Glory Ann;
Thanks for taking the time respond to my email. Your position is understood and has merit. I do also agree that all niche's of the organization be represented in the decesion making process however I feel that having a majority of trainers on the board, who's means of feeding their familys depends on the health of the entire
organization, is not a detriment.

The other professional sports organizations that you made mention of all are run by successful businessmen who hire a legal team, a promotions team and good office staff to run those organizations. Just as we have at NCHA. I would also direct you to the fact that many of the successful business people you speak of run their horse opperations very different from the businesses that made them weathly. Emotions and not good business seem to take control. Funny how that is sometimes.

Thank you for being the sounding board for many who are unhappy within our organization so that we may quell some their worries with the truth.

Sincerely,
Craig Morris

Response from a reader:

Dear Glory Ann,
I just wanted to let you know that I liked your response to Craig's letter very much. I thought it was unemotional and professional and hit all the salilent points.

And BTW, in my opinion (for what thats worth!) while its true that most horse trainers are also running their horse business, very few trainers that I have met, cutting or other disciplines, do it well! Of the 10 or so that I can think of that I have had horses with over the past 15 years, I can only think of two that I would call good (not great) business people. About 10 of them were terrible business people, and maybe 3 were OK. Among the terrible business people were some very successful trainers - they were successful because they were very talented trainers , but they would have been a lot more successful if they were also good business people. Please do not use my name.

Unsigned

EDUCATION DOESN'T PROVIDE GUARANTEE GOOD MANAGEMENT

March 21, 2009
Anyone using spell check anymore???

Moving on, let me say that the presence of education provides no guarantee that things will be well managed and decisions will be good ones. Look at Capitol Hill and the stimulus package. We have highly educated people in Congress and they all voted for a 600 plus page piece of legislation without reading it. I rest my case.

But if a business or association is going to be well managed, it needs the expertise to run a business and not the expertise to train a horse. A business is not a horse, period.

If a business is going to be well managed, it needs managers with high ethical standards, and dedication to the goals and objectives of the business being managed. And we must all remember that we talk here in generalities while realizing that there are exceptions to everything.

These are the major rubs that I believe most have with the NCHA power positions. Trainers as a whole are not trained to run businesses like the NCHA. Business managers as a whole are not trained to train horses. Some gifted individuals can do both and do them well. But they are clearly the minority.

Let's not be in denial that the rulebook is rife with provisions that most members feel favor the trainers and trainers' families. Self serving decisions are never popular. I suppose you cannot expect anyone to stop making attempts to feather their own bed. But the conflict here is one of provider and customer once again. The customer pays the bills, the provider collects the money, but the provider also wants to make the rules under which the business is conducted and the rules by which the customer must play. And in many cases the provider's family members may end up with even more of the customer's money since they could be competing against one another.

Do members of companies in the business world compete against their own vendors? Do vendors try to defeat their clients in the business world? Or do they try to nurture the relationship so that the customer sees value in the vendor and remains loyal over the long term. It is healthy that way. Vendors who don't BENEFIT customers cease to be vendors. Herein lies the flaw in the NCHA structure and mechanisms. Vendors are running the customers' company. And the vendors are still making decisions to favor the vendors and not the company or the customers.

If there is expertise in the "trainer industry" that needs to be recruited that can always be done via advisory committees or retainers. But vendors cannot run the industry or the companies that make it up. The conflict of interest will be the death knell.

Unsigned

ASTOUNDED ABOUT AMATEUR PROPOSAL

June 1, 2008
Regarding Bronc's proposal to eliminate the amateurs, I've looked at the statistics provided on the NCHA website, and I think they incomplete and therefore misleading. Also, although it doesn't purport to be unbiased, the implication is that it would be, and fairness dictates that it should be. However the numbers are clearly designed to convince people that getting rid of the Amateur class would be harmless. Just a few examples:

1) Bronc's statistics say that "less than 10%" of trainers family members win (checks I assume) at the Nationals and are area leaders etc, and "less than 20%" of the Finalists in the Triple Crown events are trainer's families. Since trainer family members make up approximately 3% of the total number of amateurs and nonpros, they are placing in the national and world finals and as finalists in the aged events more than 3 to 6 times as much as their numbers would dictate. Interesting choice of words too. "Less than" implies that the number is smaller than expected. It is equally correct to say "Almost 10%", which implies the number is larger than expected. If you want to be fair, give the exact percentage; how hard is it to type 9.3%, or whatever the real number is.

2) Bronc tells us that 40% of Amateur cardholders earned checks in 2007. He doesn't come right out and tell us what percentage of trainer family members earned checks, but one can figure it out - its 65%, that's more than 50% more. Just a coincidence?

3) Another example: he tells us how many Amateurs showed a horse in one of the triple crown events and how many of them earned a check. Why doesn't he give the same figures for trainer's families? Could it be because the numbers would again show a big difference between the rate at which Amateurs pick up checks and the rate at which trainers families do?

4) Another example: in big bold letters he has the figures for how much Amateurs earned in Non-Pro or Non/Amateur classes (it isn't clear whether he is including the $2000 limit, which are overwhelmingly amateurs, in some of these figures but not others). Never mind that there are 4 (or 5) times as many Non-Pro classes as Amateur classes, or that 75% of the NP classes are added money classes, why doesn't he tell us how much the Non-Pros earned in those classes, or better yet, how many checks were earned by Amateurs and how many by non-pros in those classes.

A concerned member

May 14, 2008
I Know that we need to be concerned about what is best for every member in the NCHA. I am astounded, from a business standpoint that, we would risk changing the Amatuer format for 162 riders. The Amatuer is not broke. Its the Non Pro that seems to have a problem, when it concerns 162 riders,according to Broncs statistics.

This just baffles me. If I have 6480 customers and 162 of them don’t like the way I do business with them, do I change the format for all 6480?

We need business people running the NCHA, not trainers. This is just absurd.
Astounded

CONCERNING THE DEBATE ABOUT THE NCHA AMATEUR:

April 27, 2008
Although I have not shown a horse for several years, I plan to show again someday and am still very interested in the actions taken by the NCHA. I am a Non Pro that is, also, eligible for the $50,000 Amateur.

I really think that the NCHA has a very poor system of determining who should be able to show against who.
And why is it the business of the NCHA how someone earns their living?

When the Non Pro first became a class, it was merely to be a place where people (usually business people) could show without having to compete against the Pros. All of that changed long ago. For years, we have had Non Pros who do little but train and show their own horses. To me, the fact that these people ride all the time and develop substantial skills abuses the whole concept behind having a Non Pro class.

The NCHA Non Pro and Amateur classes have evolved a long way from what the Non Pro was in the beginning... and the two things that bother me the most about the evolution are:

1) the fact that, as an Amateur/Non Pro, I am unable to show a horse that does not belong to me (except under very restricted circumstances). Why is it the business of the NCHA if an Amateur or Non Pro wants to borrow a horse?
and
2) I cannot let an Amateur or Non Pro show one of my horses. Over the years, I've had several horses that I had no desire to sell but lacked the funds to either show them or have them shown by a Pro. So they went unshown most of the time. It would have been good for an Amateur or Non Pro and me if I could have loaned a horse that I did not want to sell and could not show myself. What would have been so bad for the NCHA if I had loaned a horse to an Amateur or Non Pro?

I think there is a big problem with the way the NCHA deals with the Non Pro and Amateur issue... today, the NCHA is mostly concerned with who owns the horses... not trying to make the Non Pro and Amateur into classes where non-trainers can have fun showing their horses while competing against others of the same level of showing skills
.
Perhaps, rather than adopt any proposal I’ve seen, a better idea would be to get rid of BOTH the Amateur AND the Non-Pro and fix another problem at the same time. The NCHA has never made much of a place for trainers to hone their skills without having to compete against the best showmen... and I think that there is a need for places for not-ready-for-prime-time trainers to show.

If we are thinking about re-doing the Amateur, why not fix the problems with the Non Pro and give the unskilled Pros a place to show among other unskilled showmen at the same time?

To fix all of these problems, I think the NCHA should have all riders, regardless of what they do to make a living, be allowed to enter classes according to the amount of money they have won. Perhaps we could have an Unlimited (or Open), a $500,000 Limit Rider, a $50,000 Limit Rider, a $10,000 Limit Rider and a $2,000 Limit Rider class (or whatever amount limits that could be agreed upon). Then, it would not matter who owned the horse or what someone did for a living... everyone could compete against others of the same skill level as long as they could find a horse to show.

We could still have Novice horse classes (with or without rider limitations) and Youth classes, too. As it is, now, we have Non Pros and Amateurs who are more skilled at showing a horse than many Pros (and most other Non Pros will never be able to compete against them)... And, at the same time, we have Pros who will never be able to show well enough to be competitive against the top Pros (or the top Non Pros, either)... so why not make a place for everyone to compete against others of similar skills?

Further, I think that the higher entry fees and the bigger purses should be for those that compete in the highest level class or two. This would encourage those who are very good (or those who think they are) to show against their peers while, possibly, winning more than is currently paid out at cuttings.

We could also make the lower classes inexpensive to enter and not pay very much to the winners. We could let these classes be for fun. Not winning much money but let these classes be a place for winning buckles... and other awards... and for learning
.
We could, also, allow more horses per rider to be shown in the "Unlimited" (and make the entry fees, added money and purses high) and for the lowest several classes, do not allow riders to show more than one horse... because, when a person showing more than one horse makes the finals (or even the next go-round) it eliminates from the competition someone who may not choose to continue cutting... and we don't need for people to quit showing. We need to make it be as fun as possible and it is a lot more fun, especially for someone just that has not advanced before, to advance to the next level at a show. We need to encourage everyone to continue to show… and what better way to do that than to level the playing field?

I think that the only ones that might feel, in any way, punished by this would be Non Pros that have earned enough to have to show in the Unlimited class but I think that it would be a good deal for them, too, because these people almost all go for the money... and the money would be in the Unlimited class.
Anyone cutting for the money would want to get in this class.

I know that this needs some fine tuning and some kind of consideration needs to be made for horses that have won a lot, too... but if any part of this could be utilized, it would be better than what we have, now.
I can't see how doing any of these things would harm anyone, at all, and I think that it would help most of the members of the NCHA... regardless of what they do for a living.

A concerned member

OBJECTION TO NCHA 2-Y-O FUTURITY SALES LIMITED TO "SELECT SIRES"

April 7, 2008

Dear Glory Ann
Okay, now I'm really irritated. Regarding your article on Western Bloodstock holding 2-sales during the NCHA Futurity for 2-year-olds only sired by select sires, the NCHA Futurity is the biggest show in the cutting industry, drawing contestants, spectators, buyers, pinhookers, from all over the world. I believe that some people would be willing to take a loss on a 2-year-old, taking the chance that it might end up in a top trainer’s barn, either through pinhooking, or savvy. Now they can’t even put their 2-year-olds in the sales.

Building a produce record on a mare, or stud, is a long, and arduous process if you are not deep pocketed. Again, it feels like the NCHA and sale company are catering to the "chosen few," and leaving out the rest of us. I would love to hear a debate on this issue.

Very few people make money in this business; in my opinion, it is more about bragging rights. Why not let all of the membership have the same chance in exposing our 2 year olds to a captive audience.

Katie

WHY DESIGNATE BETWEEN PRO & NON PRO?

March 20, 2008

The idea of classes based on riders earnings is as fair as it gets. This would level the playing field in my opinion. However why stop there. Why even designate between Pro and Non Pro? As far as that goes why designate who has to even own a horse? Think about it, if you did not own a horse you could rent or lease horse at the show like they do in PRCA. This could create a new business within the industry. Thank you for your unbiased articles and forum to kick around ideas.

Sincerely,

Thom Childress

NEW CLASS STRUCTURE COULD HURT HORSE MARKET

March 14, 2008

Glory Ann,

Since I have already been hit this year with the change in the Change of Status rule here's my 2 cents on changing the classes. It should go over big with the people that have the big moneys to spend on made horses even in the lower classes.

This would do away with all novice horse classes and doing so a lot of younger horses or sub top end horses. Also with the way the horse market is today the a low 70's marking horse would be worth little or nothing. Because they wouldn't be able to compete in any class.

The current structure may not be perfect but money should not be the main factor in who wins most of the classes. Everyone dream is to walk in the next Doc Bar, Highbrow Cat, or Smart Little Lena from out of nowhere and win big. This may not change in the age events but you would have no chance in the weekend cuttings. It's tough enough now.

Thanks,

Scott Stresen-Reuter

A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT A CLASS SYTEM BASED ON EARNINGS

March 14, 2008

Glory Ann -
Good letter, but there are a couple of obvious questions. I agree within the nonpro there should be no amateur. It should all be divided up based on earnings only. However, that does not solve the problems of non-pros cheating-training horses and riding other people’s horses. The only way to avoid that is to make no distinction between open and nonpro and have everything done based on earnings.
However, trainers and assistant trainers can ride horses not owned by them.

If everything is simply done based on earnings, can the so called non-pro ride a horse not owned by the non-pro. I see this as two big issues or problems to be solved. So long as you have a non-pro definition, you will have a cheating problem. But if you try to solve the cheating problem by getting rid of the non-pro definition and have everything done based on earnings, what do you do about the fact that trainers can ride horses they do not own and yet non-pros have traditionally had to own their horse. This is all an issue that certainly deserves serious discussion.

Bill

GENERAL MEMBERSHIP FESTERING A BOIL REGARDING TREATMENT OF MEMBERS

March 15, 2008
Dear Editor,
I read the Whitmire posting on your website and the only thing I can surmise is that without a complete airing of facts in court, the membership will never have the knowledge to motivate positive changes the NCHA needs to prosper.

As I see it the Whitmires are "done". I think there is a festering "boil" in the general membership regarding fair treatment of it's members and it would have been better to lance it now.

A Disappointed Cutter

WHITMIRE V. NCHA LAWSUITS

Feb. 6, 2008

Thanks for your wonderful coverage of the Whitmire/NCHA lawsuit.

I have been looking back through my Chatters (the official publication of the NCHA) and I can't seem to find a single mention of this lawsuit. Aren't we as members entitled to know how OUR money is spent. This is a terrible situation for the NCHA, and from what I have read they are going to get their asses kicked in court once again..

I can't believe that our current Executive Committee is this naive. It looks like to me the Executive Committee has been bulldozed by Mr. Goins. Good luck to the Whitmire's. No one should be put through this over a non-pro card.

By the way, do you have any information concerning any civil or criminal suits that might be filed in regard to them confining Mrs. Whitmire, the NCHA doesn't respond to any of my requests.

A long-time NCHA member

PRAYER PRIOR TO MAJOR CUTTING EVENTS THREATENED

January 1, 2008

To All Concerned,
Someone called this morning, New Year's Day, and later I received calls from a few others, about a certain person in our industry who wants to stop prayer at all NCHA-sanctioned events.

You say, “How can one person make a difference?” Well, Madeleine Murray O'Hare did and now we suffer and our children suffer. For some, it was the only knowledge that we have of God and a Creator. We loved our sorry selves so much that He gave His only son to pay for our sins.

Some individuals in top positions of the NCHA have, in the past, also wanted and thought business and religion should be kept separate. If it was not for God, we would not have a world to live in, much less business. Should we keep denying Him, we may lose our souls – much less our association.

We have looked away on many, many matters and a few in high places have allowed a minority to determine what will be. The Federal Court (High Place!) thought Madeleine Murray O'Hare was justified in taking prayer out of the schools. Even the almighty dollar says, “In God We Trust.”

My Thoughts.

Peggy Hightower
3851 FM 1155
Chappell Hill, TX 77426