BY ANONYMOUS
Our industry claims to operate under shared principles set by USEF rules, with USHJA reinforcing those values through a focus on horsemanship, sportsmanship, and horse welfare. But after a recent encounter at an unrated USHJA competition, it’s clear to me that this standard is not always the same.
Where Standards Are Defined
At the rated level, I’ve noticed rules surrounding horse welfare are more visible, more clearly defined, and more consistently enforced. Horses are expected to be presented in appropriate condition, and when they are not, questions are more likely to be asked. There appears to be more structure, oversight, and accountability.
At the grassroots level, the same values exist in principle, but enforcement is often informal. These spaces where riders develop, access is created, and horsemanship should take root are essential to the sport. But they are also where standards can quietly become subjective.
In those less regulated environments, “fit to compete” can become a matter of interpretation rather than definition. A horse that can complete the task is often considered a horse that is prepared to do it. But as they say, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
USEF’s General Rule GR838 states that “the welfare of the horse must be paramount and must never be subordinated to competitive or commercial influences.” That principle should not change based on the level of competition. It is visible in condition, strength, and the ability to perform without strain or compensation. When those elements are lacking, the issue is preparedness.
A System Under Review
Recent action by USHJA supports a need for closer examination of how standards are being applied. USHJA has implemented a temporary hold on new judge licensing applications for Hunter judges, citing the need to review educational programs and ensure consistency in judging standards.
This is a meaningful step, and one I wholeheartedly agree with. I recently witnessed a horse earn a top ribbon despite obvious signs of biomechanical distress (lameness) in a performance hunter flat class at a rated show.. If our judges can’t identify subtle lameness clearly, how can we safeguard the horse’s welfare?
Where Enforcement Meets Ambiguity
Stewards are often the individuals tasked with responding to immediate welfare concerns on the ground. Their role requires not only knowledge, but the authority and clarity to act in real time. However, as I found recently, these standards are not clearly defined. Even experienced officials may find themselves limited in their ability to intervene. A recent interaction with a steward regarding a horse presenting with skin irritation and a body score of a 2-3, stated exactly that “there’s no defined benchmarks that would enable her to intervene.”
One of the more difficult realities in addressing equine welfare is maintaining focus on it once it is raised. In my recent interaction, the focus quickly shifted away from the horse and onto how the complaint was made. The trainer’s explanation for the extreme condition of the horse was accepted without further investigation, yet I was thoroughly questioned about taking photos of the horse to document the situation.
This dynamic teaches welfare advocates that raising concerns may result in scrutiny of the complaint itself rather than a full evaluation of the situation. Over time, this reframing has consequences. It does not eliminate welfare concerns, but makes them less likely to be voiced.
When concerns are not voiced, they are not addressed. In smaller show environments, relationships are closer, and advocacy can feel disruptive. Many learn that it is safer to stay quiet or to assume someone else will take responsibility. I know I have.
For years, I’ve assumed someone else will say something, surely the judge, another trainer, somebody! The recent encounter certainly showed me the cost of speaking up. While I may not be moved, not everyone is so bold as to hold their ground when addressing a steward or show management. Someone else may apologetically shrink back and let it go, fearing the repercussions of not turning a blind eye.
Defining “Fit to Compete”
While USEF rules clearly state that horse welfare must take precedence, there remains a lack of specific, enforceable benchmarks for assessing physical condition in the moment. Body condition scoring systems are well established within the veterinary and equine science communities. They provide a widely accepted framework for evaluating whether a horse has adequate fat coverage, muscle development, and overall condition to support workload.
Yet these objective tools are not consistently integrated into competition standards. This creates a gap. Without defined criteria, assessments of fitness become subjective. When assessments are subjective, enforcement becomes inconsistent. If equine welfare is to be meaningfully protected within competition environments, then “fit to compete” must be more than a general principle. It must be a defined standard.
This should include:
- Adoption of a minimum body condition score range for competition
- Clear guidance on visible indicators of inadequate condition.
- Standardized protocols for officials when a horse’s fitness is in question.
This would have given the steward I recently encountered the tools needed to protect the horse that was in question and eliminated the drama that ensued once I spoke up. While I believed exposure of ribs, spinous process, and hips, plus evidence of visible rain rot irritation, was a clear cause for concern, that day I was proven otherwise.
The Standard We Accept
Every level of this sport influences the next. What is tolerated at the foundation does not stay there, it carries upward. We see this played out at the upper levels with drugging, abuse of medications, bigger bits, longer lunging, the list goes on when it comes to keeping the horse in the ring to put ribbons and titles on someone’s wall or FB page.
The greatest risk to equine welfare is not a lack of knowledge. It is the moment when standards are challenged, and the conversation shifts away from the horse. Because then our courage is punished, not validated.
While it made me very uncomfortable to stand firm in my convictions that day, I am glad I did not bow to the social pressures I faced in the moment. In that moment, I wasn’t just talking about equine welfare; I embodied it. We can’t just talk about this anymore. We need to be about it.
