Unpopular decisions

REBECCA PENNY raises concerns this week (opinion, p15), asking why some governing bodies don’t consult more with members before making changes to rules, which later cause such kickback from stakeholders that the rules change back. She cites examples of working hunter fence widths and mandatory body protectors. Regarding the latter, the British Show Pony Society made the kit mandatory in certain classes in 2020, and the National Pony Society proposed to do the same in 2022 but revoked the rule as many adults compete in that society and were unhappy about the idea.

Are rules changed back because they were wrong to have been changed in the first place, because the whole argument and views were not properly considered? Or do bodies revert because a decision is very unpopular and there is not enough of an argument to address that resistance?

Rebecca would also like clarity in rules on whisker trimming, where in some instances showing is following the FEI’s lead and banning the practice, and in other instances there is merely an allowance for whiskers.

I do wonder whether she hints at the answers to her own question earlier in her comment, and whether the ban has not yet come with full effect given the expected response from those who feel cosmetics trump welfare concerns. Are some organisations taking a softer approach in an attempt to manage resistance? Or perhaps they cannot agree internally and here is a compromise, that untrimmed whiskers should at least not be penalised? Sarah Jenkins Editor-in-Chief