Which Direction is the NRHA headed?

2026 Rule proposal review on this episode. lessons learned as well as historical actions go into this review and where we are headed.

Episode Transcript

(00:12):
Welcome to the Cowboy Office Show where you'll experience
expert analysis and epic discussion on key pillars of the
equine industry including sports, business, hobby and the
horse lifestyle. Your Co hosts are Jodi Brainerd
and Brian Dagger, industry veterans with over 120 years
combined living the cowboy lifestyle.
The Cowboy Office Show will helpyou get involved, ask more

(00:33):
questions and create change. We'll keep riding for you as
together we learn from the ride already ridden, learn to listen
better to our horse and make ourindustry better for all.
Each weekly episode will take a ride around the industry in less
time than you can. Load
[e-mail] receive weekly updates and
never miss an episode. Saddle up as we ride into

(00:55):
today's show. Hello horse World, this shows
for the Rainers. The fact that it will change is
not new. How we direct change is upon us.
In this show we're going to cover the NRHA rule change
proposals for our sport and organization as we head towards
2026. Can't believe it?

(01:15):
Ride with us by going to cowboyoffice.com.
Put your e-mail in. We provide lots of data and
analysis. We try to bring videos when we
can. Don't forget to click on the
subscribe button of your platform of choice.
Welcome to the Cowboy office. I'm Brian.
And I'm Jody. I'd like to welcome our guest.
In our sport, it's all about good ground, good judges and

(01:37):
good purses. Today, we've got a true
one-of-a-kind that I have known way longer than I care to admit.
NRHA fraternity champion, Open world champion, past president,
Hall of Fame member, and most importantly, our good, good
friend. And again, like we've known him
forever because it's true. We want to welcome Rick Weaver.

(01:59):
Rick, welcome. Thank you so much guys.
You know, if you like they were sitting in a Bale of hay at at
the stalls figured out what we're going to do for our next
run. So it's so great to hear your
guys voices and to be able to see you as well.
Welcome. Well yes, it's great to have all
of us. It's reminiscent of the old
days. Joe Cody, Classic and all the
rest. Absolutely, yeah.

(02:21):
We're going to talk about the industry.
Our industry is trying to grow. Definitely changing education,
communication and knowledge is one of the most powerful tools
that we can help to utilize and leave it all better for the next
ones. The three of us have a very
unique set of perspectives on where the NRH as come from.
There's a blessing and a curse in that where the NRHA is and

(02:44):
where the NRHA may be headed. We got 2 past presidents and all
three of us have served as chairand active members on the judge
committee for years and years aswell as active judges.
Rick, you're still active on judging.
Jody and I have both retired ourcard.
No big deal, but the point to the whole show is bringing some

(03:05):
of that knowledge and expertise to the rest of the industry,
things that we've already learned, things that we've tried
before and things that we may need.
There's over 40 rule change proposals on the slate to be
acted on by the board of directors for 2026.
We're going to go through each of those proposals.
We will highlight the proposals that are necessary.

(03:26):
There's a lot of them that are kind of administrative, more
clerical and process. We won't slow down on it.
We will slow down on the big pieces that we think are
important to talk about for members of the NRHA, go to
nrha.com. There's a button there because
the NRHA is soliciting the members to fill out a survey on

(03:49):
these rule proposals. So you have the ability to do
the survey, put in your approval, disapproval and or any
notes you want. That's all due March 31st.
Remember to go to NRH a calm fill out the survey.
There's basically 4 categories for the rule changes.
This is the way the NRH A batched them up.

(04:10):
There's two of them for members and licenses.
There's fifteen of them for events and shows.
And I found that very interesting.
There's nine of them for judges and Stewart's.
I thought that was interesting as well.
And then there's 14 that are clarifications and I think
that's good for the organizationto constantly clarify the rule
book. In the process we kind of
batched them up into four key categories, professionals, non

(04:32):
pros, show rules, officiating rules and administration.
So we're going to go ahead and go through those and see where
the industry is trying to go. This is just the header page
which gives you the four categories as the NRHA brought
it out and the first one is the non pro ineligible time period.

(04:54):
This is the one that I thought this was somewhat interesting,
but for people over 65, this is about if you want to be a non
pro after being a pro. And so I thought it was pretty
interesting. I'm not sure where they're
wanting to go, but it's highlighted on after you're 65
and if you've won less than $200,000 in NRHA earnings, you

(05:18):
can be a non pro quicker than what the current rule book is.
You guys got to take on that. Rick, yeah.
You know, yeah. I really don't I don't see a
reason to change it. You know, there's still other
classes that we can go in when we're 65 and I mean there's
other avenues for us to do that.Not the step into the non pro

(05:41):
particular era. So you got to remember that we
came from the time when there's only two classes, right.
And so that's what you did, you entered.
So the, I think that to find yourself another level, I think
is, is doable because horses youend up taking and deciding on
what level we show at anyhow. And so when you get to that

(06:01):
particular age, I think there's still a lot of, especially now
there's so many classes and abilities you have to compete.
I really don't see stepping intoa category with non pros to be
something I would be in favor of, right?
I yeah, I couldn't agree more. I mean, the non pros got some
issues being a professional being over 65.
We don't even have to go there. I think that Rick, when you were

(06:24):
talking about two divisions, I think there's, you know, I, I
think today's solution and, and not just an NRHA, but it's just
to add more divisions so that everybody gets a prize.
And you know, it's not necessarily I do as long as
we're briefly on that topic. I will tell you and Rick, you
fully well know this, but there is a hell of a difference
between 50 and 65. So that prime time class, I

(06:46):
would get rid of that 50 year old age bracket, just raise the
open level up high, right? Because it just, it's not the
same. So anyway.
Right. One of the things that I found
interesting in reading through it this year that they used to
always do in the past was also provide who submitted the rule.
Then you knew if it was an individual or you knew if it was

(07:07):
a committee or if you knew it was staff or whatever.
They did not do that this year. And so then it, it left the
reader a little bit puzzled because you got to assume that
it's gone through some NRHA vetting yet.
And I could be completely wrong that they haven't yet.
So I, I think that that's interesting, but where would
that pressure be coming from that want 65 year olds that have

(07:30):
been pros to be easier to go nonpro?
I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me.
This one's really simple. This is the competition license
for short stirrups. And what it says is you don't
need to. So they're trying to make it
easy for short strips, horses, riders, all the rest of that.

(07:51):
And you don't have to have a competition license you got to
take. Agreed, I mean short strips the
kids are the backbone and going to be future future members.
And if it makes it easier for them had a ride a Shetland pony
without a competition license bring.
It. Come on.
Yeah. Yeah, I'm not so sure.

(08:12):
I'm not on the other side of that, Joe.
I, you know, I think that especially since we push for the
licenses and trying to get moneyfor everything and people need
to get into it. Also think there needs to be a
little vetting in the type of people that come in the short
term because it's an awful lot of the time I see, especially in

(08:32):
some of the areas you see some horses, they get in there that
aren't safe and shouldn't have to maybe be in there.
And, and I just don't because wehave by the way, if you guys
have judged very many or seen very many short stirps class,
the short stirp at the Congress and some of those are huge and I
mean really competitive. And so I don't know that I would

(08:53):
change how people get into that's the class because they
think that no different than oneyou'll see later on where they
want you to go ahead into their watered down raining version
where they don't want you to have to have a license for it.
I just think that it's fine the way it is for them to to have to
go through the steps, the parents, the horses and

(09:15):
everybody to have a horse that has a license.
I think the data, the records stay cleaner.
Without it, it gets even messier.
But I I I agree with. Record, that used to be the only
thing that we had that was a value as our records, right?
So when we were having the worldchampions and all that stuff and
we owned all that data, that's that had great value.

(09:35):
No, I agree. The next 1 is really simple
because all this one does is change the we used to go
calendar year January 1 to December 31st and for
administrative purposes. So it's really not much to talk
about. OK, this one's going to be
interesting. This is introducing an amateur
division into the fraternity. It breaks the non pro into

(09:58):
another category. So let's talk about that.
The non pro has been an issue inour industry for our lifetime
and it's now wanting to grow because it wants to sub
categorize into an amateur and then taking it.
I think there's two parts to this and I was a proponent of
this back when I was on the board.

(10:18):
I was a strong advocate that nonpro shouldn't be riding
fraternity horses. And if we wanted to put our
resources to anywhere, that should be in the Derby.
So then we can go that way. That's one on age defense.
And then the second piece is thenon pro amateur.
And what is that difference? And the reality is, 'cause
there's a section of the industry that the pro non Pro is

(10:40):
dominating it and it is driven by money.
And as a sport, should it be? That's the bigger question.
Well, you know, I've, I've got apoint to that I'll make and I've
said this many, many times and I'll open up the huge can of
worms, but it's good discussion.But I I've often said this about
being a professional and what I I wanted was for NRHA to give me

(11:02):
enough credit to know what kind of livestock I'm riding.
In other words, if I have that 217 horse and I happen to be a
level 2 or Level 3 rider, that'swhere I want myself and my
clients money to go. NRAT tells me no, I have to go
hand whoever's got better livestock than I do a portion of

(11:23):
my entry fee. I've always disagreed with that
because you're telling me that no matter what kind of horse you
got, I'm as well just walk up toa top 20 guy and give it to him
because I don't have enough livestock to catch it.
So I either have to stay away from the fraturity or I have to
lose part of my clients or my owner's money.
I think that any of this stuff could happen if you let people

(11:44):
put their money where they want to.
I don't think I think the divisions would take care of
itself and I think you wouldn't have to add another amateur
division because I think you would have people that would say
no way. I don't want to go show against
the top 20 riders. They'd say I'm going to put my
money down here in the two and the three or the one and the two
where I'm eligible. But anyway, that's just my take
on it. Yeah.

(12:04):
And I don't know Brian, what thedata is for how successful
that's been in the futurity is point.
Do you have any of that? Not in a breakout to amateur
versus non pro because I don't think they I don't think they
have it. So, you know, so for me, the you

(12:24):
know, where did amateur argumenthas always been about the
trainers, wives, the professionals and their families
showing in the non pro and stufflike that, and then the other
non pros and the domination of I've never been in favor of
penalizing people for being goodat what they do.

(12:45):
But the the domination of some of the trainers spouses and
their kids and stuff like that, I think spurs the people trying
to go ahead and find, you know, a another Ave. to to go down
what Jody's talking about. So they have a chance at some of
their own money and it doesn't all go there.
But then it back to the same thing as I think that not to

(13:08):
penalize people for being real good at what they do that I
think sometimes you just have togo and get better at what you do
go and and try to get better. So that question I still
struggle with trying to make a new class for everything that's
just not, you know, something that I am comfortable with.
I understand the argument. I would have to I would like to
see, you know, some data behind what it is that they've tried it

(13:33):
to see how, you know, it used tobe.
And I don't even know how many years that they have tried it
from from 10:10 thousand feet. They've been, they've been
playing with an amateur section in the Derby I think.
You know, so when we use OK, so when we used to make rule
changes, we had kind of a thing where it'd be three to five

(13:54):
years before we touched it againbecause we wanted to see how it
did, you know, and I think there's some wisdom in that.
So perhaps they need to continueon down that pathway and have
some analytics on what it is, how that impacts you in that
particular part one way or another.
And then maybe you could answer a little bit better, but I'm
cautious at this point to, to, you know, to say that I think

(14:16):
that that's a good idea. Do you think, what do you guys
have a sense or a feeling on nonpro fraternity horses versus non
pro aged event horses? So I'll go first.
I think that the horses and riders have gotten so good that
I don't think that the argument that non pro shouldn't have 3

(14:37):
year olds is probably valid anymore, especially since that's
where you got to follow where all the money is.
But goodness sake, some of theseyoung riders and non pros and
the horses that they're riding and stuff, but it's exciting to,
you know, participate and and judge them.
I mean, they've gotten so good. I think the quantity and quality
have gone up so much that I think that it's I think it's a

(14:58):
good thing. Yeah.
OK, I agree. I mean, I think that again,
Rick, and you just, you know, you, you said it, it's just I
always liken that to I can be asa professional if I were a
NASCAR driver and I'm in Indianapolis and I get in a
NASCAR and one of those guys gets in my Nissan 2004 ranch

(15:20):
pickup truck and we, I don't care if you're the best NASCAR
driver in the world, probably got a pretty good chance I'm
going to beat you because my caris better.
And it's like Rick said, I thinkit's the horsepower that makes
the difference. These guys are such good riders
now that when they have a good horse, it's they're like, you
know, they're like an open rider.
I mean, some of these young people are.
And I hear you and that's true on the non pro side.

(15:42):
But my point to that, especiallyon the fraternity, on the
three-year olds and now we're seeing our industry.
I mean before the fraternity wasthat was it and there wasn't
much after the fraternity. So everybody put all their
emphasis into those 3 year olds.Our industry isn't truly grown
in our lifetime to the point where the three-year old is the
step, the aged event. Now the four year old and above

(16:04):
horse and all the classes and divisions.
That's true. Where I was going was can non
pros compete in the fraternity? Yes.
Where would they go and if you wanted to do we have a
phenomenal event? Yes.
And all they have to do is enter.
They don't have to change anything, just enter.

(16:27):
It's having the segments different for the non pro and
the open side. That's that was my only point.
And I agree with you in today's time especially depth and volume
and could you build bigger purses, more significant, make
the economics Dr., the industry even stronger value of horses

(16:47):
etcetera that that's still my big one on the fraternity
horses. Right.
Well, that's the, you know, and again, the, the, the best part
about that is it drives a conversation about how we're
doing where we are and where we want to go.
You know, So I think those are that's the type of stuff that
hopefully when the board looks at that type of stuff and

(17:07):
leadership looks into that type of stuff that you come up with,
you know, a good conversation because I think that I think
what you're talking about is, isimportant.
Let me give you one piece set ofnumbers because this was just
published. It just came out in the Rainer
last month on the non pro side, top 20 non pros categories one

(17:29):
through 11. So on annual earnings, all
competition basically on that side top earner was $440,000 and
20th was 62,000. So that's money earned on in my
point to that is that's a limitation to others.
You in order to be a non pro, that is a select category.

(17:52):
That's very different than beingon the open side where anybody
can come. And we just saw it the run for
the million qualifier. You had non pros riding other
horses to try and get qualified for the run for the million in
August. That's not that's a healthy
thing. That's good.
All they got to do is enter. That's that was my point.
We don't have to beat it up forever, but I think it's

(18:14):
interesting. I, I think that is too.
And I, you know, Rick, I'd, I'd throw this one out there at you
just just because I would like an opinion.
But you know, I, I've often saidon these, on these podcasts that
we do. I said, who do you think it
number one has the, who has the most influence?
Is it the owners group or is it the professional trainers group?
And when I, I talk about how much influence do the open

(18:36):
trainers have on their owners? And I would ask you if obviously
we, you and I probably wouldn't do this because it was we're
from a different generation. But I would ask you how many
professionals that you know of in today's market would say if
they had a really good 3 year old that was started as a non

(18:56):
prone, it'd end up being in their top three that they would
say, let me show it instead of their client.
Sure. Yeah.
But I think the dynamic of our industry has changed quite a bit
because it used to be that we would get to guide people and
you know, so they will come in and you would have the business
and you would be doing that stuff for them and you would be

(19:18):
able to guide them into a direction.
I think a large part of it, except for probably a handful of
people, I think it's changed some that I think the owner now
has a lot bigger voice in it andnot always a not always a good
way, you know, because they takeand trade, you know, if they
don't like something, sometimes they trade trainers, sometimes

(19:41):
like you trade in your hat, change your hat.
And you said the, the loyalty ofcustomer and professional
relationship has changed dramatically in the amount of
years since, you know, we started the way it is now.
So it's just a whole different dynamic the the business world
now and all the stuff that's available to them.
You know, they have a lot of information.

(20:02):
So therefore, you know, the silothat they take all their
information from, they have an opinion.
And so sometimes when they hire certain people, depending on
what kind of answer they're getting from them, they might be
OK or not OK. So I think that it's changed
quite a bit Jody from the the time when we would take in be
working for some of the people and and do exactly what you said

(20:25):
and you know they would follow that now it's.
An awful lot of the times if they don't like the answer, if
they they're going to go somewhere else.
So I think it's changed quite a bit, which, you know, money will
do that. Yeah, I laugh and I, I, that's
exact, I mean, spot on. I would also tell you that when
we were kids, we can remember when our football teams had

(20:45):
players that stayed, guys that stayed there for 10 or 12 years
too. And now we're cheering for
uniforms because it might be twoyears and they're gone.
So. Absolutely.
Turnover's fast. Yeah, it sure is.
The next one, this one's simple because it's just taking the.
We used to define maturity and they're taking it out.
So all the aged events are doingtheir thing and we'll yeah,

(21:08):
steaks, herbies, etcetera. This one, we're going to spend
some time on ranch training. They are proposing to put in a
whole segment. We won't go through all of the
details, but the mere concept ofwanting to take these are added
classes of ranch raining into our rule book and into our show

(21:29):
process and they've got the patterns added into it.
I found it very interesting because it it read to me like,
OK, the NRHA is going to change to the NRRA.
Are is that where we're headed? Are we going to ranch raining
instead of raining as we knew it?

(21:49):
I would, I would throw somethingin here 1st and again, times
have changed and, and there's, you know, shot the stock horse
of Texas and that kind of stuff,that little show, a big show.
I mean with three or four of these associations combined at
the LAZ last year. And because it was close for us,
Amy and I jumped in the truck and trailer and let her go over
and show in the amateur divisionof it that she qualified for.

(22:10):
And there was almost 50 head in in the ratings both days.
But it was a great time. Maybe like those small NRHA
ratings that we used to go to ata, you know, very, just a just a
fun level and everybody's cooking outside and they're
staying there. And it was just a really good
time. We get hauled in and haul out.
But my point is that there are associations for that and I

(22:32):
don't think they needed to be added to water down.
What is the epitome of the Western horse for us?
The best that there is. So just my point.
No, I and I and I want to emphasize, I agree with you in
the watered down raining part. I don't think is the direction
we need to go in. I understand it because we have

(22:53):
leadership, they come from the breed organizations, right.
And so in the paradigm that theylook through that's kind of a
way that growth looks like to them, you know.
So if the goal is and let me step back some I I think one of
the biggest things guys that is missing in our industry is to
understand and respect our history.

(23:14):
I think that without that, I think that some of the pathway
forward and this gets lost because that they don't
understand our history or respect.
It's a back to Jody talking about that we are the pinnacle
of Western horsemanship, right? Raining doesn't supposed to be
easy. It's hard, you know, and I don't
think that we need to lose that.And I, and I get again, the

(23:36):
paradigm that I, I don't know Mr. Smith and some of the where
he comes from with the breed organization.
I get that they see that that's a pathway to try to get more
memberships and growth And I I just don't think that that's the
way when there was not the Internet and we weren't so
exposed. We need to try to go, you know,

(23:56):
laterally as much as we could totry to get people to come in,
but that's not the case anymore.We're so accessible.
Everybody gets to see, you know,great ratings that I don't think
that, you know, going in to have, you know, the end.
The patterns didn't make a lot of sense to me because if you're
going to have really beginning raining, I can't imagine sitting

(24:18):
there for beginning raining and they have to go ahead and spend
3 1/2 times each way. I mean, that's just that would
that's not well done. So I don't believe that we
should adopt anybody else's patterns.
We are raining. And I think that if we need to
make more patterns, that's what NRHA needs to do, not adopt
other ones. And you know, we have, it's kind

(24:40):
of a, you know, we already have the ride and slide.
It's just pretty much the same thing.
And we created that divisions when we had a program used to
call Rookie Days and it was hugely popular and we had some
great people in the organizationthat had the passion of that
would run it well. It was a vehicle that we had
given them. So when they would go to Barnes

(25:01):
or to put on the Rookie Days, they had the ability to go and
have simple patterns and to introduce people into raining
through that. And it's not a whole lot
different than what they're doing there.
But I don't think, I do not believe that that's the right
pathway to go. I believe what you need to try
to do is to go back into. And so in our history, we always

(25:26):
had Asian events. And then what we had was World
Championships and people that that wouldn't go any more than
350 miles to horse show. You know, that's how we divvy
up. So the affiliate program was
hugely popular and also have a world champion.
So all you know, when, when there's only the fraternity and,
and you know, just a couple classes, the world champion

(25:48):
things were a big deal. And then also the weekend horse
shows were a big deal. And then when we created the
affiliate, it was hugely, you know, it was a big boost for all
of the regional people because the, the affiliate championship
really met something. And so when I believe the point
of demarcation probably was whenthey opened up the the North

(26:09):
American championships to where you didn't have to, you could
just go there and show instead of instead of going, you killed
the affiliate champions because why would people do that?
So all those people that worked and had to go to their affiliate
show, had to qualify, you had togo ahead and be in the top
eight. That was a big deal.
Well, that's just servicing another part of our industry

(26:31):
that I think that should be focused on now, not trying to
have more have watered down raining, but to take and take
our World Championship program and take a look at our affiliate
program and reinvent it. And so that we would service
some other people want to have raining, but it's still a level
of raining that people have to you have to go get help.

(26:52):
You have to get a good horse to be able to rain.
You shouldn't just be able to show up and make a pattern.
So my direction would be trying to reinvent or affiliate
championship and take a look at also if our world championship
program is an is an antiquated model and maybe look at the
whole thing and try to reinvent that, not try to go and to drag

(27:12):
in another class. And let me say one more thing
about that. So when you're out there
competing, when you go to shows back here, you know, one of the
issues that we have is you don'thave three and four arenas back
east. You usually have one, maybe 2
and that's it. So by the time you start having
other classes, you start bringing in, you'll see have the
ranch riding. So that's going to be take up a

(27:34):
certain amount of time. And then because that there's no
other place to work your horse now in in a money maker for the
affiliates, you have paid warmups.
So by the time you have paid warmups and then now you have a
ranch raining or a ranch riding and that takes the amount of
time. So by the time you get done with
that day, the only place you have to work your horses in that

(27:56):
arena. And now all of a sudden maybe
you have six hours left of arenatime before it starts again.
And if you take multiple horses to a horse show, trying to take
them, get them worked and get the people there on time to do
all that stuff is usually not possible.
So trying to manage that. So sometimes I have to take and

(28:19):
make sure I book paid warmups because if I have enough horses
there in the arena, because whenthey have that now, they shut
the arena down now too. So you don't have open riding,
then you only have paid warmups.So now maybe you only have so
many hours of paid of regular riding to get your horses ready.
And so by the time you take a boatload of those, but then that
just rolls over again. So adding to that, as you can

(28:42):
tell, I'm probably not. I just, I don't believe that's
the right direction. I love, I love the passion.
Yeah, exactly. I might have been the only one.
Yeah, Now I, you know, I guess Go.
Excuse me, Brian, Go. No.
No, go ahead. No, I was just going to say it.
It's, you know, I think you saidwhat we're all thinking, guys
that have have done this for a living.

(29:03):
And like I said, I'll go back tothat shot, that stock horse of
Texas. That was a great show and we had
a blast at it. And if you think that those 50
head of stock horses that were shown in the rain and weren't
good, I mean, it took a 73 1/2 to win the class.
So I mean, it's a they were goodhorses too, but it's an option.

(29:25):
And I will tell you that watering stuff down is, I mean,
our AQHA World show is a good example of that.
I mean, the world show used to be, I mean, we would go to it
and it was, it was a big thing. And I mean, I you'd be trying to
get in the top ten at that thing.
And and now there's, you know, eight horses in it and nobody
wants to go qualify. And it just it, yeah, it we all

(29:46):
get it, yeah. Right.
Well, now it doesn't mean anything, but Rick's passion on
the whole topic is phenomenal. And I agree with you and I'm the
same way Jody, there are organizations out there doing I
think ranch riding is nothing but good, but let them do their
thing. Does that segment of the
industry need to come inside theNRHA?
My answer would be no and I found it silly.

(30:08):
And then comes the rest of your point, Rick, last I looked,
there isn't a horse show out there that's dying for entries.
That is not the problem. The problem is actually the
other side of the equation. We have plenty of entries.
You add more classes, you're adding more days, you're adding
more expense, you're adding moreproblems.
It's actually how do we begin tolooking at our horse shows in a

(30:31):
very different. I think Rick's on it 100% on how
do you reinvent the affiliate championship, put the integrity
back into the world titles like they used to be and can you
reinvent that? And the answer is yes.
The ranch riding thing is that was my first reflex.
Well, the NRHA is going to turn into the NRRA.
I mean, that's what it said to me.

(30:52):
And I agree with you, Rick, on our current Executive director,
Commissioner, Mr. Smith. I found that fascinating as well
because the NRHA left the breed stuff in the 60s.
And if that's our mentality and our vision, then we're actually
going backwards, not forward. So that's that's why Dale and

(31:12):
Jax, they went and started NRHA to probably begin with because
they wanted to go ahead and go in that direction.
And let me say a few more thingsabout it.
And again, I don't blame the thestaff that you have because you
know, they come from the breed organizations, but we have a
board, you know, we have a boardthat overseas that stuff.
So it's not just them. If somebody doesn't go ahead and

(31:32):
tell them that they don't think it's a good idea, then like I
said, they're not bad people. They're not doing it for bad
reasons. It's just what they, it's what
they believe and what they see. But we have, if you look at our
executive board, we have a bunchof brilliant people on there.
I mean, these are good horsemen that know what the heck's going
on. The important thing is, is it
important to them, You know, because you know, they have done

(31:54):
such a good job of promoting ourpurses are bigger, our horses
are worth money. I mean, it's just phenomenal
what they've done and most all of them live within that
confines of the industry, the breeding and all that.
So you got to be careful that you don't become too comfortable
because then some of that stuff won't be important to you.

(32:15):
And if you don't make it important to you, then the staff
is just going to be left to go ahead and handle it.
It's, it's not just on those people, it's the whole, whole
group that needs to go ahead andpay attention to it and, and
give it some energy. You have to have enough passion
about it to give it the energy. And if it's something you're not
passionate about, it probably you know the energy will just

(32:35):
pass by. No, I think you're on it.
You're bringing the direct reflex of where we've come from
because in our time in our lifetime as a second generation
of Rainers, that is exactly whatdrove us for all those years.
And I agree with you on today's a new day.
But one, understanding that partand then two, might that help

(32:56):
them to with the vision. So and I'm not sure where
they're trying to go with their strategic plan and vision
because if it's just volume, youcan look at any of our colleague
associations and see that that'snot the answer.
I, I think that's well said. I think that something else you
have to understand you guys do because you lived in the board

(33:18):
area, you know that when you, when you join the board, it's a
whole different world, but it's a different skill set that you
have to have. And if you remember Brian, when
we were president and he before that before us, that we used to
go ahead and have people come inand teach people how to be on
the board of directors. Because it is a different skill

(33:38):
set to go in there and try to have an idea and to try to go in
and turn that idea into a conversation so that people can
go. And you know, when you get in
front of a group of 30 or 40 people, you want to try to be
passionate about your message. You better be prepared because
you know, it's going to be a little different than just
talking your buddy around the corner.

(33:59):
I think one of the things that that people suffer and, and you
know this in leadership, on the and in staff's defense, you have
a bunch of people that don't come prepared in the 11th hour.
They read the thing and then they come in and scream and
holler. You know, in leadership, what
you want to ask for is people tocome up with a solution.
Don't give me the problem already know the problem, but

(34:20):
you know, go ahead and give a solution, bring it to us and
then let us tear us. But you know, come with a
solution and and a good way to go and try to communicate that.
And that's, that's a learned skill set, not a not a natural
1. And so especially now that the
board has changed how it operates.

(34:41):
So when I was president, you know, there was 44 board members
and the board of directors made all decisions.
Well, I believe that from 10,000feet, I think that they changed
in a few years ago to where the executive board can make a lot
more decisions than they used to.
So now all of a sudden, you know, that conversation doesn't
go as far as what it once did, You know, And then the people, a

(35:05):
lot of the people and committeesand also on the board of
directors, you know, they don't know, you know, NRHA operates on
a, on, you know, Robert's Rules of Order.
Well, you know, it's basically aloose version of Robert's Rules
of Order. So what they have to understand
is the good news about Robert's Rules of Order.
You can go ahead and bring something up forever.

(35:28):
The bad news is the robber's rules of order.
You can bring something up forever, Forever, you know, and,
and we live that because when wewent through that, there was a
time that we had to hire a parliamentarian to get through
our meetings because it was so contentious, right?
And so that is why that the people that get in those

(35:50):
situations that want to bring something to the board, they
have to understand how that board functions and what they're
well, how they can go ahead and,and try to get their message
across. Because otherwise you're liable
to get in a room and the agenda will blow you out of there.
And if you don't know how to inject yourself in it, next
thing you know, they're outdoor when I don't blame staff for,

(36:12):
you know, there are people for doing that.
I've done that myself. But The thing is you just have
to understand how that mechanismworks.
We always would say that if you really want to slow something
down or stop it because next thing you know, it'll nothing
will get done, you know, So we used to use would take a task
force. And so when you have a task
force, there's a drop dead date for that.

(36:33):
So you give them the job, they have to do it and they got to be
done. But to run those things.
And we had some brilliant peoplethat would run those task force
because a lot of that stuff was above our grade level.
We didn't know, but we would getthe people around it that knew
about it and tasked them with that.
And we had some champions in those rooms to go ahead and
drive those conversations. So by the time that they got

(36:56):
done with that, they would come up with a solution.
So you got to understand that you have to have that type of
energy. He's got to go into this type of
stuff before it ever gets to theboard.
But then, like I said, I don't blame staff and some of the
board that you get people to come there and they only read
the stuff before they get there.That's not what you want the

(37:17):
next. One I'm.
Going to batch these next two because I found this
fascinating. There are two sets of rules that
are actually kind of contradictory.
This is they want to add a new novice horse green section,
which goes to the dumbing down of the sport of raining.
It just makes it simpler. They want to add a new novice
horse green section. I'm going to bring with it they

(37:40):
are struggling with the novice horse Level 3 on both the Open
and the non pro and the rule proposal on that one is it there
aren't enough horses and riders to qualify for top ten World
Championships. So the proposal is the NRHA.
The cost to service the top 10 is about $5000 per section.

(38:02):
I'm interpreting that. So that's 10,005 thousand for
the Open 5000 for the non pro. What didn't make any sense to me
is why in the world would you betrying to put in another novice
horse that's even simpler when you're struggling with one of
the divisions that's in there now that I think is four or five

(38:24):
years old. They do now have the numbers.
You're talking about less than 10 horses that in a year's time
are out there playing at the Level 3 novice horse.
So it didn't make any sense to me.
But I find it fascinating, and Ithink it goes exactly what we
were already talking about, One,dumbing down to not paying
attention to data. And then three, where in the

(38:47):
world are you trying to go? Yeah, not to.
Insult or try to insult anybody that put forth the rule.
OK, Because somebody obviously felt it was important enough to
put the thought into it to end the work to put to put it forth.
And I just can like say offer a personal opinion.
I think it's ridiculous. So anyway, that being said
gentlemen, and what about the what?

(39:09):
About the level. Three novice, open and non pro.
You're talking about six and seven horses over per year over
the last four years. I put in the I did the survey
and I put in two things. One, should the NRHA put that
burden of price on the exhibitor?
The answer's no. If you're going to offer world
titles, service them accordingly.

(39:31):
If the numbers aren't there, take the section out.
Period. That was my take.
Yeah, we. May need to turn this over to.
Dodge. And doge, Yeah, yeah, I agree
with both of you. It's really pretty simple.
The Level 3 just needs to go away.
Just just stop it. But it's just not a good idea.
Go show it an open for goodness sakes.

(39:52):
You need to go ahead and have a novice horse that won so much
money. Go show it an open.
And as far as the the two handedclass goes.
That's not the place for it to have more classes.
When you're judging and you havemore divisions inside of a
class, it's not a good thing. It makes it more difficult.
If you want to have your two handed class, it goes with the

(40:13):
green most times at some of the places.
If you feel necessary that that's a good thing, that's
fine. Besides that, you know what I
can remember? Just go get your horse broke so
you can show it one hand. If you don't have somebody
that's good enough to get your horse broke to do that stuff,
then go hire somebody else. But I mean, just get your horse
broke. We didn't used to have and I

(40:33):
realized it's, it's probably apples to oranges, but we didn't
used to have several years to train a horse.
We used to have to ride them like for, for six months.
We had to go show them. And so somewhere along the line
for the customers benefit and for that you need to be able to
get them broke and go interim orbe honest with your customer

(40:54):
that you know that you you're not ready or you can't do it.
The next one, this one. Should be an interesting
conversation. I don't know how you guys the
slide contest, we saw 100 X bring the slide contest back to
the industry. We've seen slide contest in our
time. 100 X brought it to the market last year, made it

(41:14):
crowded, peeling all the rest ofthat.
But now the NRHA is proposing toput in a whole section of just a
slide contest, include show conditions, modified officiating
conditions, etcetera. You guys, I'm completely against
it. I think it's ridiculous.

(41:35):
If a show wants to put it on foran audience and do what they
want to do, let them. They can do whatever they want
to do. But for the NRHA to go into the
regulatory and standardization of that, I found it ridiculous.
Agreed. Yeah, that's kind.
That's that's kind. Yeah, you know, and you got to

(41:57):
understand. So, you know, we had a sponsor
that decided that that's what they wanted to do and they threw
a bunch of money out to go aheadand do it.
That's that's good. We'll make it an exhibition like
that. You have.
But I think we've become more sophisticated in raining then
that is what that just presents.And you know, and I've judged it
as well and there's not a lot there to be able to try to go

(42:21):
ahead and separate all that stuff, you know, and I think
it's a novelty. And if there wasn't all the
money that had been put toward that, I don't think there'd be
the interest. My question is that going to be
sustainable? Are you going to be able to have
the sponsorship to go ahead and put the money up to make that
sustainable? And I would say it's probably
not. I agree.
The next. Ones are a bunch of kind of

(42:42):
clerical ones, so we'll roll through them pretty quick.
Nominator earnings, That's a no brainer.
I don't know if it's really a controversial.
The next one after that short stirrup helmet, I think that's a
no brainer. I don't know why we didn't have
that in the 1st place. The attire, I have no earthly
idea where this was coming from,but you got to roll down your

(43:02):
sleeves and you must wear chaps and then they're putting in the
rule book that you can't wear sweatshirts.
So I don't know where this is coming from and who thinks this
might be an issue, but I found it.
I don't even know what the rightword is other than unpleasantly
fascinating that this might be aproblem.

(43:23):
And then along with the tire is international.
Jody's got some colleagues and close friends in Mexico, and I
understand that concept of it, but this rule is about allowing
traditional attire to be cowboy attire for raining, and I'm
against it. I think no, but do you guys have

(43:44):
a take on it? Well, all of the all of.
The Rainers that that I know andthe good clients from Mexico,
they're they dress like they're from the United States.
I mean, they're not wearing sombreros in their Carlos are
typical events. Yes, that's what they do as we
do here and I would expect us todo if we're going to go show
them the Carlos, we're going to put the lid on just like they
got. But yeah, it's I mean, I guys

(44:07):
from Mongolia, does he get come in with a little hawk on his arm
or I mean, I still I mean, what the heck.
I just no dressed like a cowboy.Show your horse.
Yeah, I have. No.
Words for that this I agree with.
You guys just have no words. That that shows that we're
getting older without a doubt. European event deadlines.

(44:29):
This is just a clerical function.
It's about deadlines for European shows to get their
paperwork in. That's not a big piece.
Ancillary event approval. This is adding C&D level events.
This one is show managers and show reps and I think this one
batched into they're doing two things, one separating out the

(44:51):
duties and I think that that's always been healthy show
secretary, show managers, show reps and then is having family
members showing at those responsible entities.
So this particular rule is adding C&D level shows into it.
It's just bringing it down from where A and double AF event

(45:16):
event approval show stewards they're moving into the space of
using. This is an overhead cost to
horse shows and I don't know howmany people in the industry even
pay attention to stuff, but we are more active in having
professional show stewards. That's true.
Shows have to hire those stewards, and they do carry much

(45:36):
more responsibility than they have in the past.
And now they're wanting to allowthe family members of show
Stewart's to be showing or competing.
And the caveat is in shows big enough to have two Stewart's or
more because they think they canput that arm's length between
the responsibility of competition you guys got to

(45:57):
take. I had a question about this.
So I, I talked to some stewards and because I was, I just was
unclear about it. And you have to try to believe
that people are the best of people.
And so if, you know, if they have two of them, that way, they
believe if there is an issue with a, a family member, that
the other one would handle it. To me, I just assumed that it's

(46:22):
going to be a huge financial boost for shows to be able to,
to utilize that instead of not. And you know, I, I, I've never
been to a show where there's nota steward that I had wished
there was. You know, I think they're, I
think they're a wonderful thing and it's a really good tool.
But I also understand that there's no way some of the
smaller shows can afford to do that.

(46:43):
If there's a financial gain for the show committees to be able
to utilize something, I would bewilling to go ahead and believe
the best in people that it couldwork.
But you know, that's, that's youknow, what I had gotten from it.
Jody and I have talked about this.
A lot in some of our shows conflicts of interest in today's

(47:05):
time versus our time is, are we,are we better at that or worse
at that? Is it more of an issue or less
of an issue? I think it's just more.
Of an issue because of the exposure that we have to
everything. You know, before it was word of
mouth, it's basically that you would see some of that stuff.
Now there's everything that we do is on a camera.

(47:28):
So I don't believe that people are any more devious than they
than they once were. I think they've always been
devious. But the other part is, is this,
we have such exposure now because if everybody has a, you
know, a camera and a phone, thatI think that's what the
difference is. Yeah, that that conflict.
That conflict word is as. There's a a dual edged.

(47:51):
Sword and we both look at it I mean we all three of us can look
at it like from the judging standpoint always I always felt
like if somebody said that therewas a conflict and then my my
our officials weren't doing a good job so in other words if if
you're officiating as accurate there should be no conflict I
mean you could have your brothershow to you I just I but I and I

(48:12):
think also one of. The things is that the Stewart
program is still young enough that they're trying to figure
out how to get more of the experienced stewards through the
program. So there's a handful of them
that do all the majors and you know that you want to send them
in, in the fire when that happens.
I think it's just like judging, you know, it takes a lot of

(48:33):
experience to go ahead and to, to be able to do your best.
And it's, I think it's the same way with stewarding.
It's not just the joke where youyou wake up and go walk around
the barn and see your friends. So I think the natural
progression of the Steward program is going to grow that.
I think they know that that's anissue that they have to somehow

(48:55):
widen that gap of the experienced people in there.
I think that they're working to trying to do that.
But I know that I know that theyknow that there's a need for
more of the people that have theability to to do that.
Well, and the next. 1 This is just about the show steward's
report because under the currentrules, they have to file a

(49:16):
handwritten report within 15 days.
This is making it within five days, which to me is like a no
brainer. But I actually wrote in my
opinion, why isn't it within 24 hours?
And you do it on a you do it on an app, you, you could actually
have it by the conclusion of theshow 30 minutes after the last

(49:36):
horse. You could have that done in no
time. So I why are we behind on using
technology? Yeah, I don't know.
What's the fight? How?
They came up with the five days.That'd be an interesting piece
of information, but all we know for sure is it needs to be a lot
sooner. But if five days the best they
can do, so be it. But I I agree with you.

(49:57):
I don't see why I can't get trimmed down smaller than that.
Efficiency. We're back.
To doge that the next one maybe call Elon.
We're going to go into the judging sections a little bit.
This one's an interesting one. This is on the minimum
requirements to be an NRHA judgeand they're taking the age down

(50:18):
from 25 to 21. If you look at the numbers, the
numbers in the last two years, the we don't have a number
issue. It's not that we don't have
enough judges and we certainly competency isn't an issue
either. So I found it very curious, one
where in the world's this comingfrom.
If the current judges committee is spending their time here,

(50:40):
that's very troubling and puzzling to me.
And if this came from some othersource, I found it very curious.
And why would we be wanting to do it?
Do you guys have it? I'm actually, I think this this
is silly, period. I think the requirements and
standardization to become an NRHA judge need to go up, not
down. Needs to be tougher and more

(51:03):
scrutinized, not easier and less.
That's me. Yeah, I I would.
I would offer an opinion and since I'm no longer carrying
that judge's card, I get pretty much say whatever I want, right?
I think anytime I see something like like this, I think of a

(51:24):
younger set of owners and a younger set of trainers that
believe that older riders are being marked more than younger
people. And I it was just an opinion,
OK. And I I think that someone's
going to have to say we these old guys need to get stopped

(51:46):
getting marked and we need some we need some fresh blood in
here. And you know, these guys are
we've got our first woman fraternity winner.
I mean, we've got we got young people that are beating the hell
out of the old guys. I mean, if you don't think Lucas
going to kick his dad's butt, you're mistaken.
So, but I, I think that it has to come from some spot And what
I, I feel like whoever put this forth was not judges committee,

(52:09):
but I think it's some it's a younger generation that say it's
our turn And I, I, I think that there might be a little
background in there for that, but I'm open to opinions.
Go guys. No, I think that's an easy.
One I I agree with both of you, I'm not in favor of it and
mostly awful lot would be just because I remember what I was
like when I was 21. I remember it too.

(52:37):
Yeah, yeah. And the judges chair is?
Not where you want it, right? Right.
Yeah. The next one is.
Bit guards and I don't know whatthe I don't know where this one
came from, what's the issue? All the rest of it, they just
put a very distinct set of description around bit guards.
Their intent to this was about the fact that the pinching the

(53:00):
cheeks of a horse, which what a crock of noise that was.
So again, it put the question on, where's this coming from and
what's the smokescreen? The quality of our bit makers is
so high that that's not the issue.
And so and bit cards are alreadylegal.
So I I don't know where the big to do is.
But anyways, do you guys have a take on it?

(53:22):
Yeah, it's cheating. No, this is supposed to which
which puts it back in the judges.
If judges need bit guards so that they don't have to deal
with horses gap in their mouths,then they shouldn't be judges.
This is altering the rain lengthand they're just playing with, I

(53:43):
think this is just clarificationbecause it's about where horses
can be stopped. So I'm assuming there were some
judges that are having a hard time with not understanding
practical applications, simple lead changes.
They're just going into clarifying This said to me we've
got younger and not younger inexperienced judges.

(54:06):
This says to me our education system is weak because if
they're not teaching the judges how to apply these parts in our
sport, that's where the issue is, not in wording.
That's my take. And the other one is walking.
Have you guys ever seen a horse walk out of a rollback?

(54:29):
Oh, I read that one too. Yeah, I, I guess I probably
have. But it's easy enough that we
have a maneuver evaluation that can take care of that, you know,
so if you have a horse and it has a part where it walks out of
the rollback is going to reflectin that particular maneuver
group. So.
Right. Yeah, so adding and making it.
You know, adding more penalties or more to a penalty so that

(54:50):
people can go to the video monitor again and try to figure
out how many steps if he walked,how many steps that he walked is
not where we need to go. Agreed.
I would just throw in another $0.02 worth and I'm and and
trust me at the intercollegiate stuff that I've been doing,
there is some simple lead changes both in the horsemanship
and the reigning, but it's because some of those horses

(55:12):
that are donated that these girls have to show they need to
do. That they're bad.
But at an NRHA level, I don't think there should be a simple
lead change, you know? I I just.
I don't think there should be. So anyway.
Again, my two cents, this one. And, and the rule edition, they
wanted to add walking out of a rollback and walking more than

(55:33):
half the length of the arena. And I, I can tell you in my 35
years, I've never, I never saw it.
And I think there was only once,it might have been twice where I
use the rule of trotting more than half the circumference of a
circle or half the lengthy arena, Right.
Ever. Yeah.
So I I was surprised that, like,where is this coming from?
The next one is in downward transitions.

(55:55):
And you guys remember this stuff?
Well, because we went through, my guess is 3/4 of the industry
either wasn't around or doesn't remember.
But we went through the downwardtransitions at nauseam.
Right. Yes, they're back and.
This. Rule is wanting to make downward
transitions easier and Dumber, not more.

(56:17):
Let me take this. One on 1st if you don't mind
guys. So because I had something to do
with the first time we ran it away.
So when we had the downward speed transitions and then of
course horses would slide to them and you know, then the
debate was OK, so how far can they slide before?
And again, it's back to our rulebook says they can both he can

(56:38):
briefly touch the growl and the downward speed transition, which
the first thing I would do is get rid of that so that that's
not in there. And so how we got away from this
the first time was that to try to figure out.
And this is before we had an in camera.
An in camera helps that stuff ifyou try figured out if it's a
breaker gate or not, but still there's a part in there to where

(57:01):
how we. Got away from this.
We defined and. This is useful for all
maneuvers. We defined.
What an excellent. Downward speed transition would.
Look like and what we did actually got it out of a had a
disage book. So basically when you went from
a 4B gate to a 3B gate with virtually no motion, no
commotion, that's what an excellent speed transistor like

(57:24):
what just so happened that time Dwayne Latimer won the 30 and he
had a horse that did it spot on.And if you watch now, there's
probably about 30% of all the people competing do that.
That horse slows down in front and keeps driving behind, lowers
its neck. And I mean, that is an
excellent, that's how you get out of of, of some of that

(57:46):
stuff. So going back to the, the part
where the horses can't go ahead and lock their legs up and do
that. One thing I know about our
horse, our riders, they are so good.
Our trainers are so good. If you tell them that that's not
OK, I promise you they'll changeit.
And that's why they changed their, you know, downward speed

(58:07):
transition the way they did now because that we were taking and
penalizing that. Well, now they've moved away
from that and have allowed it again.
I would take and make it to where if you did that, I would
take the part out where both feet could briefly touch the
ground. I would just and say it's just
like for everything else, if those feet come together, it's a
one point penalty and then keep right on going.

(58:30):
I promise you, if you penalize people for that, it'll go away.
But if you start to give voice to it again and allow that, and
the biggest part is you can't teach it.
We tried to go ahead. And so you know what an
excellent 1 looks like. Now that we have defined that,
you need to tell them what that is.
And then that way people can aspire to that, not the other.
Not to leave it now. Yeah.

(58:52):
Agreed. Good explanation.
We've all been there. We've all argued with it at one
point or another in a room full of judges and yeah, agreed.
The. Education component.
Is a big one and we all experienced it in a lot of
different forms over many, many years it.
Appears to me by. Some of these rule submissions

(59:13):
that is an area of weakness thatobviously the NRHA is struggling
with. How do we educate and or manage
these interpretations and rules accordingly?
This one is going backwards because this is taking the two
point breaker gate out and allowing them to do what we've
actually already addressed. That's my take on well, the

(59:34):
other part too, is you. Use the KISS method, right?
Keep it simple, stupid. SO you got to realize people
realize when you're judging, youhave this equation running in
your head all the time that never stops.
And so when you have certain things that pop in there that
you have to go ahead and make a decision for, you need to have
clarity to it so you can give ita value and get away from a keep

(59:55):
going because that's part of of judging and judging for hours is
that's why we have the best system that is out there.
We take and give things of valueand get rid of it.
So when you have penalties and things like that.
That you have to try to figure out if it was or if it wasn't.
And you need clarity from NRHA and from our rule book to be

(01:00:16):
able to make those determinations so that you can
do it because you can clearly goahead when something is down
there like that. You can clearly make it also a
maneuver deduction out of that. But if you just got to make it a
cut and dried thing, not a not awhat if or above the.
Next one did this is. Simple membership online.
I don't know why that it's just a rule clarification.

(01:00:37):
No big deal. Non pro relinquishment.
This is about who gives up theirnon pro status.
It just says that you've got to have that done in the NRHA
office 30 days in advance. So not sure why that's a big
deal either. Immediate family.
They're adding niece and nephew to the definition of family.
I can't believe that wasn't. Already.

(01:00:58):
And you remember when we did that, we went through all the
900 possibilities of Aunt Step in Stepchild.
I can't believe that that wasn'tin there.
I I have to believe it was in there at one time and it snuck
off. It might have got lost from
print to digital. Yeah, yeah, it's, it's snuck.
Off somewhere. I promise you that's that one

(01:01:19):
was in there sometime. Competition licenses this.
Just clarification because of the short stir up piece,
forfeited earnings, if you remember forfeited earnings,
anybody that was showed in something ineligible, those
monies went to the NRHA. The NRHA is now saying show
management you keep those, that's all that same.

(01:01:41):
I should have been that way in the 1st place categories of
competition. That's not any big new other
than they're bringing some of those prime time pieces to where
we want to go. Youth non pro.
Isn't that an automatic? Isn't the youth automatically a
non pro? It was at one time I'm.
Not sure. Any, I'm not sure anymore.
My guess is that probably somewhere in the tweaking of the

(01:02:06):
non pro decorations 100 times that it went ahead and got
clouded and then we're going to go into para.
Raining we we don't have to spend the time on all of that.
They're just specialized conditions for what Para era
raining needs event classification.
This is adding C events and it'sbeing clear on the fact that a

(01:02:26):
dollar or more is added at the lower level entries.
Event cancellation have to make notice.
No kidding. I think that might be a bigger
change in the industry now because in our time we didn't
cancel events. OK age show.
Closed event and show conditions.

(01:02:47):
It's about the added, added money.
This is a rule clarification. This is an interesting one
because what this rule is sayingthe way we've always been in the
past, added money could never beover the top end.
You couldn't add it any higher than the top end of the open and
the top end of the non pro. They always got the top end of

(01:03:07):
that. You couldn't add more.
This is saying it can't add any more than what's at one level
above it. So I'm not sure where.
They're wanting to go the added money for any level cannot
exceed the added money in any higher levels within the open
and the non pro category. That's for category 2 and
category 6. Oklahoma's raining couple weeks

(01:03:32):
ago they had three categories init.
It was highly their aged event had a 2-3 and four.
So maybe we're beginning to movein that direction to where show
producers can start to put on events that are more structured
to their clientele in the regionmaybe, which would be a good
thing. Yeah, sure, I would think.

(01:03:54):
Agreed. Entry level ride and.
Slide, this is rule clarifications and what it's
really doing is saying the $30 application fee as opposed to 5%
of the jackpot payouts. This adds leasees because we're
leasing more horses than what weused to.
That's healthy. But it it just is clarification

(01:04:15):
that it'll pay to leasees. I wasn't sure why they needed to
redefine the hackamore. Do either of you know this?
I have no idea. Why, yeah, I mean.
Again, I have no words. Exactly.
Yeah. And then guess what?
It brings us to the end because it's ranch raining patterns

(01:04:37):
because they have four of them that they've pulled from the
AQHA. So that's what they're wanting
to add in for the ranch raining section.
It's going to be interesting to see where the board goes with
all of this stuff so that that'sthe list of changes.
Well, it's that's really. Cool.
And I would, I would, as I'm sitting here thinking and

(01:04:58):
listening to you guys talk and the information is great.
I can I would ask you both the question and I, I can remember
Rick, when you because open riders have bitched about major
event judging since the first one.
Probably, right. I mean, so we've all had to deal
with that and Rick came up with this genius idea that I thought
was you know what, I'm going to get these guys.

(01:05:19):
I'm going to let my open riders pick major event judges, which
was something new at that time. You remember that, right?
And and so there's some time passed and I said, Rick, how'd
that work? And he said, I can't even get
enough people to eat. They would rather bitch about
it. Then they would send me names.
I mean, open rider, they wouldn't do it.
I mean, from a survey. I mean, we we already know that

(01:05:41):
it's hard enough to get people to go ahead and vote for the
president of the United States, right.
So what I would ask is both of your opinions.
How much of this should depend on a member survey about new.
Rule changes should. If if we have 15,000 members and
5000 respond, which probably is way, way high, how much of the

(01:06:02):
much should the executive committee of the Board of
directors take that into consideration or do you think
they would say, now look, this is what's best for the industry?
I mean, do you think that Board of directors would?
Take that membership. Vote into consideration.
I'm just asking that guys, what what about it on any of these
rule changes, any of them? Well, if you're right about.

(01:06:26):
One, I think it's interesting asyou go down through that when
you're going through it in the survey says, you know, sometimes
that again, the biggest part is that there's really not a large
enough sample size to afford to have a, a great opinion really
isn't. So when you send people don't
read and people don't participate.
It's just the way it is. But if you're doing your due

(01:06:47):
diligence as an association, youhave to ask people and you know,
and then you get some things back from it.
And but as far as it be having ahuge impact on those decisions,
I don't think it does. I think that there's better
avenues for the membership to beable to have an impact on
something that they're passionate about, you know, but

(01:07:08):
a survey as far as those things go for the board, I don't think
it has much of an impact at all,the survey.
I I agree with Rick on the fact that can we get the memberships
input and have a better pulse onwhere their sense could be on
any given issue a subject? The answer is yes.
And it's been easier and more efficient and more effective in

(01:07:29):
today's time than ever before. That's true.
Is the NRHA anywhere near that? It appears to me no, including
the use of technology. We are not even beginning to
scratch how to do that. Now the other part of that
equation is when you talk about 8 to 10,000 members in the US,
another five to six international, fine.

(01:07:52):
You're not talking about a wholelot of people what it appears
to, which, which means, one, howdo you get them informed, 2, how
do you get their input? Should the NRHA leadership in
today's time, we used to have a much bigger board and the board
had the ultimate authority in mine and Rick's time.
And it was structured that way on purpose.

(01:08:13):
And it was the representation because then they should have
had a pulse from last week, in the last month, from where the
members were on any given issue.That's the way we did it in
today's time with that moving tothe executive level.
And yes, they've got a new groupof people that I, I have respect
and ultimate faith in their knowledge and experience and

(01:08:36):
wisdom. Yes.
Does that mean it's easier to move with things that they may
have? Do I have faith in the board?
No. And now if you got 5000
responses out of the membership,would I be categorizing them and
summarizing them? Yes.
And should they have some notation to them?

(01:08:58):
Yes. Whether we will or not, I don't
know. The mere fact that this list of
rules got all the way to the submission level it it scares
me. That's me.
I think the best work that. We ever did.
We'll have a friend that said, if you really want to go ahead
and cause change event a crisis.And so we've so we've lived

(01:09:21):
through that before. And I think some of the best
work we ever did was during thattime, because what we did, we
would have our time, our town talks at shows and you would get
people to come there and they would be passionate about what
it is that they're or what they were wanting to listen to.
And then that word, that discussion.
And that's the the biggest problem, Brian, with, you know,

(01:09:44):
with society is now with everything's off their phone or
off the Internet from the drives, people, people just stay
in their own silos. They read whatever it is that
they're thinking. They don't go ahead and and look
on the other side of stuff. You don't have those
confrontations that we have grown up with.
So we had to go ahead as we're going.

(01:10:05):
We had to learn to communicate and be in a group and do that,
you know, that stuff is fading away.
But I think that's a big part ofour problems with understanding
of our history and respecting our history.
But being able to sit down and I, I'm sure it spreads into the
boardroom. So having the ability to to sit
down and, and have different viewpoints on something and, and

(01:10:29):
debate that is something that's missing for everybody.
And our town talks brought that to the front.
It made everybody do it. Of course, we didn't have the
exposure that we have now with some of this.
So it was a necessary thing, butyou got to get people face to
face to discuss stuff. You know, that was the good part
about the board of directors being a big part of all the, you

(01:10:50):
know, all of the decisions had to be on a board level of that.
So you had to bring the stuff tothe big group and you had to be
able to convince that group thatthat's what it was.
So God bless all the all the times there was that one guy
that wasn't going to go ahead. And you know, the good news is
he created a conversation that either strengthened what you
believed in or made you pause. And that's the type of stuff

(01:11:13):
that with everything electronic that is available people, I
don't know how you get some of that back.
I really don't because it doesn't take any courage to go
ahead and sit on the Internet and go ahead and, and tell you
that I think you're a dope, right?
But if I'm sitting across from you and tell you I think you're
a dope, I'm in danger. So I, I think that people, you
know, we're in, we're in a time when, you know, people don't

(01:11:35):
mingle and don't take and communicate like they used to.
And I think that's a societal problem.
I don't think it's just an NRHA problem.
I think it's a societal problem that, you know, everybody has to
try to work through. Right.
But one, one of the things that fascinates me is by the numbers,
we are on a growth line. Every part of our industry

(01:11:59):
except for one is on a growth line.
The one thing that's not growingis membership, which means the
amount of members that are leaving and going out is the
same amount coming in. So the volume of the members
over time is pretty status quo, true domestically, true
internationally, every other part of our industry, which I

(01:12:20):
don't think is a bad thing because if that's how many
people are savvy and sophisticated enough.
One of the things that raining was very different than
everybody else. The disciplines are very
different because they were active.
The membership of a discipline is active in the 90 percentile.
That's very different than beinga member of some other

(01:12:43):
organization where you're just casually involved in it.
We were active members. That's true.
Active exhibitors. Where I was going with all of
that is horse, but horse value is up, breeding of horses is up,
sales of horses is up, purse money is up, shows are up,
venues are up. Every part of our industry.

(01:13:05):
And yes, that's true, Rick, that, you know, on the East
Coast, most venues have one or two arenas.
In the central and the western part of the country, they've
learned how to do that. We've got more arenas.
Does show management and show production have to adapt
according to what infrastructure?
Venues. Yes.
Where I. Find all that.

(01:13:26):
Interesting is then what would precipitate us as an
organization to have a list of rules like we just went through
that. It just seems to be it's not
forward advancing. It's not, it's not trying to
make our product even better. It's trying to make it maybe
just bigger, have more of others.

(01:13:50):
That doesn't make sense to me. I think it's yeah, yeah.
Go ahead, Joe. OK, well I want.
To take us back just a just a step and I don't don't lose this
topic, but what I want to do is I can talk about a.
Reigning horse and we look. At him and we can't believe what
our horses are doing today and Iwould submit that at any time
wherever we're at, it was just as hard to win the reigning in

(01:14:13):
1983 to win the futurity as it is right now.
The quality of the horses weren't as good, but that
winning that futurity was damn hard to do.
No, and it's just as hard today.And I, I'd served on that board
of directors 3 different times and after each and every time I
swore I would never do it again.And then, you know, I would go

(01:14:34):
back and Frankie would say come on and I'd do it.
And then I'd be Oh my God. And, and it, and it's just as
difficult today. I mean, I haven't been on it
forever, but I will promise you it is just as difficult to be on
the board today as it was 20 years ago.
It's, it's never a simple thing.And I think that in when
somebody served on it once, which is why we end up having to

(01:14:55):
kind of recycle presidents a lotof times because it's a lot,
it's a lot of work and there's no pay and, and it's a it's,
it's hard. So gathering quality people to
make decisions. Sometimes I I think it's a
little bit of a catch 22, right?I mean, isn't it hard to get
convince people you we, we need you in a second?

(01:15:16):
I've been there and done that. I go back, you know what I mean?
It's like, as long as my barns full, that's all I care about.
So. Yeah, I, I think.
That you're right about some of that, Joe, did you know any?
The only thing I can do sometimes is, is tell you what
it looks, you know, like through, you know, through my
eyes. I think that when you, I can
remember at the very beginning that I, someone told me or I

(01:15:41):
told myself that I even need to shut up or get involved, right?
And that's kind of how it all started, you know, And then
after that you get to be where you're passionate about it.
We're so passionate about our about NRHA, you know, and maybe
for different reasons because that we, you know, a big part of
growing it and making it expanded into the thing Jody is,

(01:16:04):
you know, that I always talked about at this point in time,
he's having the, the passion drives the energy for you to go
ahead and to be able to, to do that stuff.
And so, you know, either you have a passion for a, a, a
certain program or a certain thing that you want, or for me a
lot of times. And, and I told Brian this other
day, the passion for me. Now, sometimes I don't have the

(01:16:26):
energy to take on, you know, a project that you know, because I
know that how much it takes to to lead something in a
direction. And it takes a lot of time and
it takes a lot of energy and doing, but I do have a passion
for people. And so when I have people I care
about, if they call me up and say, Hey, I need your help with
something, I'm good with that. You know, that gives me a

(01:16:48):
reason. I'm not going to lead it, but I
can be part of it. And so I think that for, and
that's just this probably to speak for me where I am in my
life with, with stuff like that,because I, you know, I think I
have probably a lot to lend to people about some of the stuff.
But you also have to #1 somebodyhas to ask you.
And then the other part is you have to go ahead and, and

(01:17:11):
believe that. And I think this happens for
volunteers on the board. You get to believe that's
you're, you're not wasting your time.
So if you go to those meetings and stuff and you don't get to
participate in it or you don't get to get your ID out there,
you don't know how to get your ID out there.
Pretty soon that goes away and Ithink that now these, we've made

(01:17:31):
it so successful that a lot of the younger people coming up
now, they just ride the wave andthey know they're busy.
We were busy as they were, you know, when we're doing the stuff
and found ways to go ahead and and, you know, interrupt your
life to go and do it because it was important.
And I think that, you know, that's just not the same
anymore. I think that it's back to a

(01:17:52):
societal thing in the the difference in generations now
between ours and and the ones they're coming.
But it's what they look through and, you know, what they believe
is important with is different than what we did.
I I. Think also, Jody, I found it
interesting because just in the last couple weeks, I've asked a
number of people that are our age, professionals, been around

(01:18:18):
the industry a long time. How many of them, one even knew
the rule changes were out? Not many 2 How many of them had
even glanced over them and paid attention to them?
Almost none. So, you know, a couple people
that also served on committees could talk about some.

(01:18:41):
Of the rules that. Like the stewards, so OK, but
wasn't interested, didn't know about any of the others.
And so there's a piece in there that says to me, our industry is
healthy and doing well, which means is everybody paying
attention? No.
And it also means they're all plenty busy enough and that

(01:19:04):
we're doing OK. The rest of that is but the
leadership sitting in some handsand somebody's going to make
some of these decisions. Whoa, that scares the the
Jeebers out of me. Yeah, I I couldn't.
Agree more and I I think that like I said, from a management
standpoint, I think that and Rick, you said you said I think

(01:19:26):
people have always been devious yeah, ethics, you know, I mean
there's there's always been somepeople with it that you could
take to the bank and some peopleyou got we're not trading
horses, you know what I mean? It's like this this thing going
to happen. And I think from a management
standpoint, there's a there's a balance and it's really, really
hard to find you on one hand, you you're talking about that in

(01:19:47):
camera on the gates. I when I was chairing the judges
committee, I called Jeremy to say I want you to put an in
camera on that gate. And he said, well, did you get
permission for that? And I said, Oh yeah, that's
funny. Yeah, that's back to having.
Wisdom, though, is because you're easier for you to go
ahead and ask for forgiveness instead of permission, right?

(01:20:09):
So why? And you ask?
For permission, I would somebodywould tell me, no, I couldn't do
it. But at the same at this by the
same level. Sometimes we've we've all
experienced on that, you know, maybe that board some stuff
that's been done that maybe the membership didn't know about and
it you know what it was just maybe that stuff kept in the
closet. So somebody didn't know about

(01:20:30):
it. So that there's AI always said
there's a balance in there somewhere and being a healthy
balance, sometimes make that decision, go for it.
And sometimes it's like, hey, I want to know what's going on
because I'm a member. I want to know what's happening
and I don't I don't get that. So anyway, kind of a catch 22.

(01:20:51):
Yeah, I get. I get.
Brian's concern about and, and Brian I guess would guess that
again we become complacent. You know, the, the board, I
think things are going so well in some areas.
They, they, they just become complacent.
No, they got to do real changes.So therefore probably a lot of
them were individuals sending them stuff in instead of them
coming out of the board going into that.

(01:21:14):
They just probably come in that way and they flush around inside
the association, then come back out on a page and, and, and know
full well that probably most of them are, you know, are not
going to be acceptable. But you know, you, you have to
have some champions in there of a of a certain cause to try to
go ahead and to to cause some ofthe changes that you talked
about or address some of the changes.

(01:21:36):
But it's just probably in a period of time to where you know
that we just don't have that well.
Gentlemen. Gentlemen, Yep, we.
We have reached. The end, Rick, we can't thank
you enough. I, I wish we would have done
this sooner and earlier. I'm glad we got it done for
everybody's sake. Having a little bit of a

(01:21:57):
catalogue of this I think is healthy for the industry.
But we can't thank you enough for your time.
I appreciate it, Jody. I always enjoy the work that
we're doing. So thank you both.
This is a dynamic 1, and so I appreciate it from both of your
standpoints, your insights, yourvision, your wisdom.
So thank you very much. You are so welcome.

(01:22:20):
Rick, so appreciative of you. And I think what we need to do,
Brian, is to come back on CowboyOffice and let's do another one
with Rick and maybe let's pull John in at the same time.
Let's do one about the history. Yeah, let's go in.
Let's let's talk about that. OK, yes.
I think it's a great. Idea and the point would be we
should schedule what we should do is just sit down and have a

(01:22:42):
conversation and talk about someof the history where we came
from how we got to where we are and then we could collectively
talk about some vision on options into the future.
But if we just had that open-ended conversation and get
it catalogued, I think it'd be very healthy.
I I'd be about it, You about it,Rick.
Oh, absolutely, you guys. I.
I I'm humbled, but that you guysasked me to participate.

(01:23:05):
I, I'm a fan of both of yours and I've known you guys a long
time and I'm, I'm really fortunate to be able to call you
guys friends. So thank you so much for having
me on, all right. Gentlemen, it's been a blast.
Talk soon. Yep, Yep.
Enjoy the ride. Stay in the middle Today's.
Episode is brought to. You by 40 productions in
cooperation with The Consultant Agency, a full service agency

(01:23:27):
that helps bring forward thinking equine brands into the
21st century using digital skills and services such as
website development, graphic design, social media and media
production such as the podcast you're consuming here today.