by Cathleen Sullivan McDonald
I hope USPHA will forgive me for stealing their motto, but it seems apt considering the epiphany I had just a few moments ago. The problems we have in this breed are not the result of having two organizations. The problems arise from the maniacal need of one organization to destroy the other.
Please understand, I supported the idea of the merger. For those of you who don't know, I worked closely with the original Merger Committee to frame the Merger Agreement and the new By Laws. I was proud to be part of the effort. I saw NAPHA as an opportunity to create something new, something elegant and functional. I was dismayed when, during the final days of negotiation, punitive clauses were inserted regarding the registration of horses (the infamous "A" list) and the Merger Committee opted to include the Ethics procedures in the By Laws. The proposed merger did not receive my vote.
Below is a quote from a white paper I did for the merger committee on 11-4-2004 prior to the first vote:
First, as you are framing these requirements, remember that NAPHA will be a monopoly for the Peruvian Horse industry in North America. As such, NAPHA will have a higher burden to demonstrate fairness, due process, and protection of the rights of individual members. There is more at stake here than an individual problem; NAPHA will have the power to force someone out of business and deprive them of their livelihood or the benefits of their investment in the horse. NO action with such far-reaching consequences should be considered lightly. We can't use the systems that worked before.
Rather than take the opportunity to create an inclusive and positive organization, NAPHA was formed in the political climate of the PPHRNA, with many of the same people in important positions. For those of you who don't know, the PPHRNA was formed when a group of owners disagreed with the way the AAOBPPH was being run. This is not uncommon in human organizations; witness the number of Baptist churches in any small community or (for that matter) the number of chat lists on Yahoo. When people don't agree with each other, they should have the right to leave and create their own organization based on common goals.
Having two (or more) organizations is very beneficial to those of us who pay dues, register horses, and participate in shows. The bottom line is that competition keeps costs down. The lack of competition allows the solitary organization to raise rates (or strip shows of their approval) with impunity. It also gives those in charge a false sense of power and enables the abuse of power. Where things get really screwed up is when one group is intolerant of the other. Think of the immeasurable amounts of energy and resources that have been wasted.
One of the primary goals of the PPHRNA was to put the AAOBPPH out of business -- not passively or by being a better orgaanization, but by calculated and assiduous maneuvering to destroy the AA. The AA did its share to discredit or undermine the PP. Easily 75% of the rules, show rules, activities, and campaigns of both organizations were dedicated not toward improving the status of the breed, but to besting or harming the other organization. Because of differences in their corporate structure, the PP could respond more quickly and capitalize on opportunities that the AA simply couldn't grab. If only we could rewind the tape and use all that time and energy to make things better for the breed. I had hoped NAPHA would realize that things could change and reduce this type of negativity, but recent events have made it clear that they are unprepared to provide the positive, responsible leadership that we need.
The truth is there are two types of owners of Peruvian Pasos: the breeders whose main interests revolve around breeding, training, showing, and selling the horse for reasonable prices and the other group who looks forward every day to riding their horses, brushing them, loving them and showing them once in a while. The fundamental needs of these two groups are vastly different. I do not believe one organization can accommodate the needs of both groups, nor should it be necessary.
So, rather than continue to battle over limited resources, why can't NAPHA just go on its way and lead by good example to improve the reputation of our breed rather than focus on destroying it competitors or detractors. If they can't stand a little competition, then they are not the ones we want anyway. Competition is good.
"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." Lord Acton