Home Current News News Archive Shop/Advertise Ridecamp Classified Events Learn/AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
ridecamp@endurance.net
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

Re: [RC] did AHA give in or did they have no choice - heidi

Hi Heidi,

   I think because you fervently believe in keeping the Arabian breed as
pure as
possible and are upset by the results of this lawsuit, you might be
reading Mr  Krause's comments as supportive of the terms of the
settlement when in fact, you, and  I, have absolutely no idea how he
feels about it.

Diane, I think you misread my position.  I feel that AHR did what most of
its members want, and my primary "upset" in all of this has to do with the
organization being forced to do something against its "better judgment" if
you will.  While purity of the breed is certainly an issue to me, it is
not the foremost issue in this case.  Basically, the wishes of the
majority of breeders (most of whom are smaller breeders) are being
subjugated to the wishes of a few high rollers.

The only "idea" I have of how Mr. Krause feels about it is what I read in
the same document you read.  And from that, I clearly formed an entirely
different viewpoint than what you did.  There is a lot of political
doublespeak in it--and that has traditionally been the way that the
trainers and breeders who pushed this whole concept have cloaked their
arguments.  It is precisely the way that Mr. Krause wrote his letter that
led me to believe that this is something he wanted all along.  I felt that
his letter cited that view pure and simple--and it had nothing to do with
how "fervently" I might have wished otherwise, or why.


 My point is that whatever he
FEELS,  he WROTE about the settlement, not its terms, and he did so as
President of AHA,  responsible for making that which is a fait accompli
as palatible as possible,

Yes, he tried to be a good politician, I'll grant you that.  But I do not
agree that he WROTE in an entirely unbiased manner.  He is clearly
cognizant of his position, and spoke with some care.  I simply felt that
there was an opinion showing through that.  You apparently did not feel
that way.

I read #2 to be extolling the virtues of accepting the horses as well.
 One might argue that the "business benefits" would be the cessation
of legal fees, I suppose--but it is "benefits" in the plural, and I
read that to mean increased business for the association and its
members, inferring trafficking in these horses.
Since Mr Krause doesn't say there is any virtue in accepting theses
horses, I fail to  see why you think he did. And as to the plural
"benefits", besides legal fees there  will be savings in staff time and
office expenses, travel fees for court time.  I can  imagine that there
will be better relations with Arabian organizations in other  countries
that might have supported allowing these horses in which in turn will
facilitate the exchange of data on horses registered elsewhere in the
world.  I'm  sure an AHA exec could come up with many more "benefits".
Better yet, reading the  terms of the lawsuit would spell out EXACTLY
WHAT AHA GOT in exchange for accepting  these horses.  Which brings up
another point... of what benefit is it to current AHA  members to accept
as pure, documentably impure horses?  Sure it benefits the SA  breeders,
but THEY don't belong to AHA.

There are AHA members waiting with bated breath to import these horses as
the next high-dollar "craze."  And given the history of this, that is the
first and foremost "benefit" that comes to mind, the way that Krause wrote
this.  Granted, a bit more history of the situation might be necessary to
come to this conclusion.  And without benefit of that history, one can see
where one might come to a more benign conclusion.  But there is a lot of
baggage behind this.

Unless there is a buried proviso that
states  from now on, partbreds with at least 99.8% Arabian blood can be
registered with AHA  as purebreds, the members don't get diddly.

You're right--the rank-and-file grassroots members don't get diddly.  But
the ones who influence policy stand to make big bucks.

I also see #3 as assuming a whole heckuva lot--it doesn't "settle" any
disagreements "between camps" as he puts it.  That's sure a good
glossing over.
I agree that it doesn't settle people's disagreements on this issue but
it does put a  LEGAL end to the dispute.

Yep--that's precisely all it settles.  The way he puts it leads one to
believe that he is trying to convince the grassroots that this settles
something more, when it does not.

And while #7 lists the "milestone" as being the freedom of lawsuits,
the wording that this is a "successful" conclusion certainly leads one
to believe that he was firmly in favor of it.
Remember which side of the argument AHA was on.  They did not support
accepting these  horses so clearly being forced to accept them could not
logically be called a  "successful conclusion".  Again, he is clearly
referring to the settlement, not its  terms.  And yes, I can see him
being "in favor of it" if "it" is a settlement that  succeeds in legally
resolving this issue from Hell.

It sure isn't the way one would phrase it if one was merely trying to get
rid of the legal issue "from Hell" and nothing more.

Just goes to show that carefully-crafted political statements can be read
in a variety of ways, doesn't it....  And this one was indeed carefully
crafted, if nothing more...

Heidi



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


Replies
Re: [RC] did AHA give in or did they have no choice, Kristen A Fisher
Re: [RC] did AHA give in or did they have no choice, heidi
Re: [RC] did AHA give in or did they have no choice, Katrina O'Neal
Re: [RC] did AHA give in or did they have no choice, heidi
Re: [RC] did AHA give in or did they have no choice, Diane Trefethen
Re: [RC] did AHA give in or did they have no choice, heidi
Re: [RC] did AHA give in or did they have no choice, Diane Trefethen