Author
|
Topic: PR problems and the inspection process (Read 8879 times)
|
Tannenwald Trakehner
ata
Old Hand
 Offline
Posts: 935
TANZBRISE by Windfall out of Tariana
|
I got this in an email from a friend who breeds Egyptian Arabians. It is scary that this is the kind of impression that people outside of the association are getting about inspections and ATA procedures:
An internet acquaintance of mine took her Trakehner mare and her straight Egyptian arab mare (16 hands and gorgeous) down to Florida this past fall for inspection, but neither of them passed. She said they had just one woman making the judgement calls and decisions on which horses got approved and which didn't. Isn't that a bit subjective? To allow just one person to decide the breeding future of the breed doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, my friend was sorely disappointed and is now trying to market her Trakehners.
I tried to set the record straight on current inspection procedures, but frankly I have a hard time getting behind mare inspections conducted by only one inspector, thus it is difficult to speak with conviction.
Seems like people with the ability to effect changes in association policies need to come up with ways to 1) have inspections run as desired by the majority of the membership within practicality for the association; and 2) do a better job of explaining just what is going on to hopefully avoid this kind of impression from being formed.
A bit more in general terms (and perhaps a bit more inflammatory terms ...), I think everyone is interested in supporting the association, but doesn't the association have an obligation to handle PR in a manner that will not hurt the image of Trakehners in the horse-owning population (and in the marketplace!)? So many of us grouse about the bad rap Trakehners get for their temperaments, but when the association comes across looking nonsensical, it is one more burden for our noble beasts to bear.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 05, 2003, 01:37:38 PM by Tannenwald Trakehner »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
shadytrake
ata
Gold Medallist
Offline
Posts: 263
I LOVE Trakehners!
|
As a member of the PR Committee, I can tell you that we are looking for "new ways" to educate and market Trakehners. Please let us know of any ideas or suggestions you might have either on this thread or to me, shadytrake@earthlink.net, and I will pass them to the PR Chair.
As for your friend's mares, it is surely disappointing that they were not approved, but I believe that the inspector-Rhea Gibble was comparing them to the "trakehner standard" for breeding purposes only. Just because they were not approved does not mean they were not "good."
I attended the inspection in Florida and my main comment about the mare inspection was that it went so late that the shadows made it difficult to see the points the inspector was trying to make about the mares. 
I would have to refer to my notes regarding this particular mare, but I believe that she was one of the later ones of the day. I remember that it was difficult to see her in the arena.
I hope that your friend does not feel discouraged about the ATA or Trakehners in general.
Please note that these are my personal opinions only. I am not an employee of the ATA, just a happy volunteer. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tannenwald Trakehner
ata
Old Hand
Offline
Posts: 935
TANZBRISE by Windfall out of Tariana
|
Let me clarify--I did not get the email from the person who took her mares to the inspection. I got it from a friend of hers, someone who had not gone to the inspection and had only the mareowner's statements to go on.
By the same token, I neither went to the inspection nor have seen the mares, so I cannot comment on their quality, comments made, or even who inspected them.
My point is that people are leaving our inspections so disappointed and misled by the process that their reports to third parties generate comments like those in the email.
So the problem is not one mare or another, it is perhaps in the organization/procedure of inspections and perhaps in the education of owners of "inspectees" and others about the purposes, procedure, and results?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 05, 2003, 03:18:20 PM by Tannenwald Trakehner »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Amanya
ata
Preliminary
Offline
Posts: 96
Life is Choices
|
Even more basic: the credibility of the inspection/inspector.
Anytime there is a subjective judgement going on, the validity of that judgement is likely to be challenged.
A friend of mine tried to get her Hannovarian mare inspected two different years. Both times the mare fell short by just a point or two. The first time, my friend thought it was just that the inspectors were being too picky. The second time, different inspectors, same results. She finally concluded that the evaluation was indeed valid.
Mare owners need to feel confident in the inspections and that comes from credible ones. IMO that starts with more than one inspector, since everyone has some level of "filters" on in their brains and their eyes.
Folks don't fuss much about an FEI level dressage score derived from three different judges, sitting in three different locations, who agree within a fraction of a point.
There is another side issue as well: I also know of two mare owners who prefer not to go to an inspection for fear of "failing" and thus diminish the value of their mares and foals. It was easier to say they just hadn't gone.
So, start with more than one inspector. Then I would suggest better education, both before and during the inspection. I personally feel that I should leave an inspection knowing more about my horse, both the positive and the less-positive. How else do we learn? 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Navar
Guest
|
The person who took her two mares to the Central Inspection, one of which was a very tall straight Egyptian mare, and a Trakehner was probably me as I believe I was the only person there with an Arabian mare.
I did very much think the whole process was subjective by not having more than one person evaluate each mare. I also thought that the mare portion of the inspection was very poorly run and not a positive experience for me or my horses.
My Abdullah daughter did pass, although just barely. She was "fried" from a very long day of this process. Also, she and my other mare had very much bonded from traveling together and being stabled together and after a long day, did not like being seperated. Both were also dinged because they were "nervous" which I can only attribute to seperation anxiety after a long day in a strange place.
As to my Arabian mare, Ms. Gibbles was obviously judging her to the Arabian standard and not the Trakehner standard, which I thought was flawed in light of the process. The whole reason I brought the mare was because I thought her added height and large-bodied conformation coupled with good movement would make her an excellent candidate for the pilot mare program. Several people had encouraged me to take her thinking she would be a shoe-in. Instead, Ms. Gibbles dinged her on Arabian-type as since she is a larger mare, she is not the carousel-pretty type of Arabian usally seen in the Arabian halter classes. She also dinged her for her ears being a bit long and for carrying her tail up and to the left. Arabian mares typically have ears longer than their male counter parts and Arabians in general tend to carry their tails lifted and most exhibit some preference in carrying them to one side or the other. The Standard does indicate a preference that they carry their tail up and straight out behind them, but many don't. I don't ride their tails or their ears, so I have never been overly concerned. But this made it obvious to me that Ms. Gibbles was judging her by the Arabian standard. I, and others, thought it was a shame that the deductions for these three very superficial things very likely cost this big handsome Arabian mare her approval into the stud book. She only missed grading in by one point. The mare is straight Egyptian and her pedigree is stacked with National Champions in performance and halter.
Obviously, I can resubmit her for inspection and some suggested I do so with a Trakehner foal at side, but I don't know that I will bother unless the ATA improves the inspection process to make it a less subjective experience where the mares are concerned. They are obviously more concerned about the stallions which to me is a somewhat backwards approach given the influence a mare exerts on her foal. I am hopeful things will imiprove as I do like the breed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lara, Gryphon Farm
ata
Gold Medallist
Offline
Posts: 291
Trakehner Cowgirl
|
I agree there needs to be more than one person inspecting mares. The inspectors are already there, so the argument that it would cost more to add another, or two, doesn't hold water. Is there a reasonable argument for no change? Although stallions pass MORE get, mares pass more genetics, and considering the short list of ATA stallions actually being utilized (see ATA-released document at http://www.americantrakehner.com/StallionOffspring.htm ), we're getting more bloodline and genetic diversity from our mares. So, we have one person inspecting the mares, right? And then we have mare owners looking at the inspectors' remarks of stallions to help make informed decisions on crosses. Some remarks about recently-approved stallions include, "..should cross nicely with a variety of mare types, but especially with mares of good quality." And, "This heavyweight stallion should improve the quality of foals from average mares and produce very good foals when bred to above average mares." Huh? So what are we mare owners to do? Rely on one person to tell us the quality of our mares, and then choose stallions based on whether that person said the quality of our mare was "average" or "above-average?"
One person making the very big decision for the breed, or your farm, isn't right for the mare owner, the ATA, or stallion owners who have lost business to mares short-sightedly unapproved. Is there anything we can do as membership to change this? How to go about it? How quickly it could be adopted? Inspections have not yet started for '03, and there is an ATA Board meeting next week. Do any of you have the by-laws to look it up? If a change were suggested at the board meeting and voted on, could the change be made for this year's inspections?
Just a thought: Is the attraction to import Verband-approved mares possibly fatal to the American Trakehner mare as the process stands? In our farm's eyes, yes. And in that case, ATA stallions are being utilized even less and our babies being marketed to a smaller group. What say you?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Karim
Guest
|
I think it is a good idea to discuss these very important issues here on the forum but once we agree that a change is needed, we should collectively approach the ATA & ask for these changes to come true. We need to get results in order to improve our organization & by no means should our elected officials take any criticism personally. It is all for the sake of our beautiful horses.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Beckie
ata
Gold Medallist
Offline
Posts: 271
I LOVE Trakehners!
|
This is a very interesting and frustrating discussion. I would just like to add one question. As a voting member of the ATA, has anyone EVER been asked to vote on ANYTHING other than board members. My impression, as a voting member, is that all of the decisions are made by the board and we are just there to get them all elected. Also, FORGET having any say in the organization unless you own and campaign a stallion!!! Mare owners opinions really don't matter except where you place your $$ in stud fee. Just an impression after a decade of membership. Luckily, all this has not discouraged me from being an enthusiastic owner and enjoying the pleasures of a partnership with this great breed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Karim
Guest
|
We have a regular forum participator ATA board member here. Sherry can help us with many of our questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
shadytrake
ata
Gold Medallist
Offline
Posts: 263
I LOVE Trakehners!
|
Actually, we have voted on other things as well. If you were at the 2001 annual meeting, we voted on the language of the membership of juniors as well as a few other items.
To be honest with you, I don't remember too much about the 2002 annual meeting because I wasn't paying as close attention as I should have been. The minutes and agenda are available to all members in good standing.
Contact the ATA for more information.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shawnda
ata
Gold Medallist
Offline
Posts: 314
|
It is possible to make changes, all it requires it a bit of work. The ATA is open to changes that our membership feels is in the best interest of the breed.
I am the secretary of the ATA. Myself and other members of the Executive Committee and Board of Trustees do follow this forum. As a point of interest, I own 2 mares. I do not own a stallion.
There are often half-truths and a lot of misinformation that is printed here. For example: "The inspectors are already there, so the argument that it would cost more to add another, or two, doesn't hold water" Not true. At stallion inspections only are most members of the inspection committee present. The majority of inspections that take place are mare inspections.
If you wish to make a corporate rule change, this must be put on the agenda for the Annual Membership Meeting months in advance. The wording must also have been written and approved by our legal council. It requires a 2/3-majority vote at the Annual Membership meeting. For those of you who attend the Annual Membership Meeting and PAY ATTENTION, you would have noticed that you did in fact have the opportunity to vote on many issues. The ATA board cannot make a corporate rule change; it must go before the membership.
So, the best thing to do, would be to poll the membership to ask if they indeed do wish to have more than one inspector at mare inspections, and if so, are they willing to pay a higher inspection fee, and if yes, how much? The ATA does not make money. We try to keep a balanced budget, which has not been easy in recent years. Our Membership Chairperson is Eileen Poole. She should be able to help you with the wording of the poll. Ask to have it included with another mailing of the ATA, possibly as another page of the newsletter, which is published every two months.
It would be interesting if you could find out the fees and guidelines regarding mare inspections of other comparable Warmblood registries before hand. Presently the ATA charges $200.00 per OSB and PSB mare inspected, with the exception of tb and Arab mares. We charge them $50.00 and if they pass the inspection, then they are charged the remaining $150.00. That way if the mare fails, the owner will be out less money. We also require that all mares are DNA/blood typed as well.
I have found that from past experience, major changes such as this, require two years. You would be surprised how much this topic will be debated at the Annual Membership Meeting, and of course we will give everyone a chance to voice his or her opinion.
I look forward to meeting you at the next Annual Membership Meeting in Seattle WA.
Good luck, and if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at Shawndan@msn.com
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lara, Gryphon Farm
ata
Gold Medallist
Offline
Posts: 291
Trakehner Cowgirl
|
So would it be possible to change, at least for next year, the stallion/mare inspections to include more than one mare inspector? I realize this wouldn't be fair to the mare-only inspection goers, but at least people would have a choice. Also, is it possible to change a rule quicker via a membership vote by mail provided the response is adequate? Thanks for the information, Shawnda.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
fuzzy
Guest
|
I agree $250 is obscene. If you'll be primarily showing, though, you can show her under any name you like without changing her name with the ATA. The USAE and USDF paperwork is written so that if the horse had two names both are on file and the horse's points are logged with the correct breed association as well as the sport governing bodies - and the extra name doesn't cost any more in fees there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shawnda
ata
Gold Medallist
Offline
Posts: 314
|
In response to "change a rule quicker via a membership vote by mail".
Page 12 Article XX, Section 1. of our corporate rules and regulations states......."rules and regulations .......may be amended only by a two thirds vote of such members present and voting."
In other words, no vote can by made by mail. The ATA is not set up at this time to vote by proxy either.
All rules and regulations can be accessed online at our ATA web page.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elkene
Novice
Offline
Posts: 26
I love Trakehners!
|
Don't feel too bad, $250 is relatively cheap compared to what SWANA (SWB's) charge. They firmly discourage re-naming by setting the fee at a whopping $500!
But I think they said that if you show the horse under a different name, they would make a note of it in the registry.
I'm sure the name change this is for tracking reasons. A lot easier to keep up with a horse if it's registered name is always the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tannenwald Trakehner
ata
Old Hand
Offline
Posts: 935
TANZBRISE by Windfall out of Tariana
|
... shocked that the high cost of $100 to change her name has gone up to $250
Wow, this is tough for me to grasp, too. Is it really that intensive to issue a new set of papers and track a new name as to warrant such a big fee? 
I think this actually deters registration. I have always waited until "the last dog was hung" on registering foals; all of ours are for sale, and if I wait to paper them until they are sold, the buyer can register a name to their liking. Otherwise, I would be out the initial fee and the buyer would have to kick in the name-change fee.
Usually, if the foal has not yet sold, I cave and register before the 1-year deadline to avoid the slight increase in fees. But now that the name change would involve $250, the fee structure militates toward foregoing the pre-yearling registration discount (what is it, $30 now?) and not risking a later $250 expenditure.
It is my understanding that the fee schedule is not established by vote. Is that correct, anyone know?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 12, 2003, 07:53:44 AM by Tannenwald Trakehner »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tannenwald Trakehner
ata
Old Hand
Offline
Posts: 935
TANZBRISE by Windfall out of Tariana
|
So would it be possible to change, at least for next year, the stallion/mare inspections to include more than one mare inspector? I realize this wouldn't be fair to the mare-only inspection goers, but at least people would have a choice.
I certainly agree that mare inspections should not be conducted by only one member. But I would vigorously oppose this "solution."  Rather than lending consistency to mare inspection scores, allowing some mares to be inspected by one inspector and others to have a committee would only serve to add another layer of confusion to the process.
Consider the uninitiated Trakehner shopper going to buy a mare, and having to know that 1) the mare has to be a registered Trakehner (and ATA and NATA are now equivalent), 2) that mares have to be inspected to breed; 3) that after inspection mares may be in the OSB OR the PSB and what each book entails with respect to which stallions may be bred to and how foals may be registered. Now add yet another component in trying to use the fact of ATA approval as an indicator of quality of the mare you are considering: How many inspectors (and which ones) inspected the mare?
In all candor, I think the approach you are suggesting will add further confusion.
Before getting into Trakehners, my first acquaintance with a breed that was inspected was with Friesians. I had a friend who breeds Dutch Friesian horses. They are papered with FHANA, the North American "child" of the verband in Holland. Each year a team of inspectors comes from Holland to inspect and brand the foals and breeding stock. They do one big tour and bring a professional handler with them which the horse owners have the option of hiring. The team jets around to various locations in the US and Canada and then go home, and that is the end of inspections for the year.
Through this process, the horses are all inspected/approved by the same inspectors (at least, within a year, as the members of the committee may change); the same inspectors examine the horses presented in Europe; and greater consistency in scoring can be had.
The cons? Well, the inspections are all held at the same time, so there is no option of taking your horse to a later inspection because it is in "the gawks" at inspection time; the inspectors have to commit to the length of time needed for the inspection process (ie, might take a week out of their vacation time); my understanding is that there is no input on inspections from the American outfit (ie, no American inspection team), which may be a con or a pro depending on your point of view.
The inspected horses receive ribbons at inspection corresponding to the grade they receive, so it is a little more festive to watch these inspections for the casual onlooker.
And surprise of surprises, look at the fees that FHANA charges: http://www.fhana.com/rnrs-a.htm#Appendix%20A
Notice, the responsibilities of the inspection host (who has the benefit of not having to transport her horses). And notice that, rather than paying a flat higher fee to the association for the judging, the members with horses being inspected have to pay their share of the cost of bringing the inspector to the site. A certain minimum number of horses is required for you to have an inspection scheduled at a site, and then the more horses the cheaper the per-horse additional expense.
This system seems very fair to me and it seems that maybe we could incorporate or improve on some of those elements in the ATA's processes. From my understanding of the process, I would happily accept the "cons" of the FHANA system in order to get a more consistent inspection program in place.
I believe strongly that we need to have more than one person inspect stock. Single-inspector scorings seem random and useless to the mare-owner in assessing the quality of her mare and breeding goals. I will say that there are two inspectors whom, if I arrived at an inspection with my mares and found either of them to be the inspector for the day, I would take my horses home and forego the inspection. There are some inspectors that I would drop to my knees and thank the powers that be to have, depending on the bloodlines of what I was presenting.
I suggest that by definition, a system which allows such preferences to be formed in the minds of the mare-owners is not one which is fair and consistent.
Mind you, inconsistency is not a new problem. Scores in general have gotten more generous than they were in the beginning of the ATA's mare inspection history. I presented a mare in 1997 at the annual meeting and I am confident that she received a much lower score than she would have if she were inspected now, even by the same inspector. Looking at the scores as reported in the newsletter, I am amazed at the number of scores above 50 that are awarded now. In 1997 at the inspection, there was an absolutely phenomenal mare who I do not think received more than a 52, the highest score for the year. I wish that I had not presented my mare, as it was a voluntary inspection yet she has to carry the score she received forever.
There has long been a perception among members with whom I have spoken that a stallion approved at the central inspection has more "clout" by virtue of approval than one approved at a local inspection. A lot of people perceive that scores are lower in general when given at the central inspection than at a local inspection. A lot of people also perceive from published inspection scores that horses in certain areas of the continent appear to run consistently higher in quality.
Under a system such as FHANA's, I believe we could do away with all of those "inconsistencies" and perceptions which devalue the inspection process in general.
One other thought on this subject: true or not, I have been told there is a belief that the Verband inspectors may not grade North American horses as generously as those in Germany. The reason given for this is that it is in the interest of the European organization to motivate the North Americans to import stock produced by German breeders. With that bit of cynicism, perhaps having an inspection committee composed only of Verband inspectors would not be well-received.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jennifer
ata
Gold Medallist
Offline
Posts: 323
|
All mare/foal inspections for all breed associations are always just a "snapshot" of the mare/foal...its what was presented to the inspector on that particular day. It can be no more than that. Yes, sometimes the day is horribly hot and maybe your horse was tired from the drive or from being pregnant or something else. I had my Oldenburg mare inspected (for GOV)on a 100 degree/90% humidity day and I think she would have had more energetic gaits on a cooler day. But, there you go, what can you do? The day is was it is and your horse's energy is what it is. And what do you do when your horse who is a calm angel at home turns into a nut case at the inspection and she's moving all tight in the back? That's the snapshot that's presented on that day and that's all the inspector can see to evaluate.
If you want to complain about an inspection process you should check out an Oldenburg inspection. It takes about 5 minutes: the mare stands for a conformation evaluation, is walked away and towards the ONE inspector, and is trotted around the triangle. That's it. No evaluation of gaits at liberty. If stallions are being evaluated, there is a bit more observation of the horse since he must be free jumped through a jump alley. And this inspection is also done by ONE inspector on one day. The ATA inspection process for mares involves much more evaluation of the mare since her gaits are observed on a hard surface, on the triangle, and at liberty.
The people doing the inspections have been involved with stallion inspections at annual meetings for years and have "apprenticed" with full inspection committees that have included German reps. At the annual meetings there usually are people who are "apprenticing", too. They are developing their abilities as inspectors, but their scores don't count. And the ATA inspectors do not give "arbitrary" or "random" scores as some have claimed. From the inspections I have seen, I thought there was consistency in the scoring, but I thought some of the scores were too generous and that some mares should not have been approved for the pilot program. The abilities of the ATA inspectors are well thought of and, for example, Brad Kerbs has been invited by the German Verband to particiate in the judging of a big show in Germany. So, I don't believe the abilities of the inspectors should be questioned.
While no inspection process is ideal, the ATA's is similar to other inspection processes, and all of them have the flaw that the inspector(s) only sees the horse for a short period of time on one day. However, there is a proceedure whereby an inspected mare can be re-inspected. I have been to inspections where this was done to possibly move a mare up from one registry to another like to the main mare book. Maybe it can be done for any mare? But, it was interesting to note that the mares' scores didn't change much (at least for the mares that I saw being evaluated). So, that, too, may indicate a level of consistency for the inspectors.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Navar
Guest
|
I still think its a subjective process when you only have one person evaluating each horse, period. That situation encourages people submitting mares for inspection to avoid certain inspections due to whomever the inspector may be. That sounds just like avoiding certain shows after you find out who the judge is. It's selective , a pain and unfortunate.
Too bad the inspection process seems more like a process of elimination rather than selection. My experience felt like the inspectors were there to "exclude" horses rather than "include" them and not the other way around. I realize that you don't want inappropriate horses approved for breeding, but I am not certain it's the type of atmosphere that is appropriate to encourage membership and participation.
I don't care if that is the way the Oldenburg people carry out their inspections. I have often wondered just what criteria if any, they are looking for as there seems to be a huge cross-section as to the type of horses approved for that organization. Just because they do their inspections that way doesn't make it right or equitable. One person's opinion is not worth that much but a group of three would carry more weight and be more equitable.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Maren
ata
Old Hand
Offline
Posts: 691
The Bouncer
|
Quote by Lara:
So, we have one person inspecting the mares, right? And then we have mare owners looking at the inspectors' remarks of stallions to help make informed decisions on crosses. Some remarks about recently-approved stallions include, "..should cross nicely with a variety of mare types, but especially with mares of good quality." And, "This heavyweight stallion should improve the quality of foals from average mares and produce very good foals when bred to above average mares." Huh? So what are we mare owners to do? Rely on one person to tell us the quality of our mares, and then choose stallions based on whether that person said the quality of our mare was "average" or "above-average?"
I think Lara has an excellent point here. I'd be 1) very confused and 2) also quite mad that my inspectors make these kind of comments. It tells you nothing about breeding a good horse. Inspectors are here so that the rest of us can learn from them (and this is true both in Europe and the US), but frankly, while I do respect a comment made by Gehrmann, Paul or Gunia, I have a hard time accepting this kind of unqualified statment. Any of us can come forward with such a statement. It is also quite unfair for the stallion owner, it makes the stallion look below average.
There can only be a discussion regarding the "how" and "when" the ATA should start to have more than one inspector, I think the "should we really", is out of question
@ Ingrid:
I find it hard to believe what you said about German inspectors downgrading ATA stock so that you guys spend more $$ to import. While you do have some outstanding Trakehners in your country, there are also several of soso quality and if that is expressed at an inspection, it should be understood as help to improve, not to bash!
I know certain German individuals that have tried (successfully) and still try to load "undesired" German horses into the US (everything coming from Germany HAS to be good!) and really behaved more than unfair. But a woman like Gisela Gunia, who has no interested in selling horses whatsoever, would certainly NOT try to do anything like that. And I value her opinion VERY highly!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tannenwald Trakehner
ata
Old Hand
Offline
Posts: 935
TANZBRISE by Windfall out of Tariana
|
I find it hard to believe what you said about German inspectors downgrading ATA stock so that you guys spend more $$ to import. While you do have some outstanding Trakehners in your country, there are also several of soso quality and if that is expressed at an inspection, it should be understood as help to improve, not to bash!
Maren, note that I said that this is what I had been told, in other words, that there are people of this opinion. True or not, personally believe it or not, some do. I also will say that I was given this information by people quite long associated with the ATA, as opposed to just some person off the street.
The suspiciousness came as a surprise to me: I have always thought it would be best if Verband inspectors were either included or composed entirely the inspection committee, as I think that is the way to keep the development of the breed on all continents moving in the same direction. But that said, I can understand if some other ATA members have this belief.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tannenwald Trakehner
ata
Old Hand
Offline
Posts: 935
TANZBRISE by Windfall out of Tariana
|
Page 12 Article XX, Section 1. of our corporate rules and regulations states......."rules and regulations .......may be amended only by a two thirds vote of such members present and voting."
In other words, no vote can by made by mail. The ATA is not set up at this time to vote by proxy either.
Taking this thread even further afield, just WHY is it this way? Can't the membership/board choose to change this, to allow voting by proxy or by mail? Or interactively, online?
I have wondered about this for a long time. I have had several conversations with other members and with the office about this subject. I have been told that too much discussion goes on at the meetings so that the issues to be voted upon are not defined until the meeting. I would think that the way to deal with this would be to publish the planned agenda, invite public comment, further discuss and refine the issues at the meeting, and then allow voting after the meeting date when the issues are defined.
The present system seems backward and unreasonably constrained given the distances separating members (and separating members from meetings) and the technology which is available which could so easily allow participation. By allowing voting only by members present at the annual meeting, the governance of the ATA is reserved to those with the financial means to attend and the time to invest (away from their farms).
Lack of attendance at meetings is not the same as lack of interest in the goings-on of the association. Many of us with horse farms simply cannot get away. Personally, I have taken only 3 trips longer than 36 hours since acquiring my horses in 1997; 2 were to the annual meeting, and one was on a shopping trip to look for horses. Journeys for everything from horse shows to family funerals have to be done in a race down-and-back exercise in between horse feedings. I don't think I am the only member who is tied to their farm but would very much like to have a voice in the operation of the ATA.
Maybe the rotation of the meeting to different locations will allow attendance--and voting--by some members, but possibly only in the year that the meeting is closer to them. The current state of the economy is not likely to encourage attendance, either. The slowing of the horse market, and other financial problems, has many of us looking very carefully at horse- and farm-related expenditures. A trip to the ATA annual meeting may not be at the top of the list when the other choices are hay and farrier work.
Am I the only one who things this system should be updated? How can such an issue be raised to whomever would be the decision maker (board or membership)?
Let's use this conversation to accomplish some things!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
 |
