 |
Re: [RC] did AHA give in or did they have no choice - heidiHi 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|