Indiana Standardbred Breed Development Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Date: September 6, 2007
Please note: These are NOT official minutes of the Breed Development meeting. They are notes developed by our representative attending the meeting.
The Indiana Standardbred Breed Development Advisory Committee met on Thursday, September 6, 2007, at the Indiana Government Center – South in downtown Indianapolis. Committee Chairman Michael Christner called the meeting to order a little after 1:00 p.m., thanking all those in attendance for coming to the meeting.
The first item of business was approval of the minutes from their August 10, 2007, meeting. Those minutes were approved unanimously, as written.
Continuing with their desire to gain insight from those with prior experience with the future issues we are facing with the coming of slots to Indiana, several guest speakers were present at the meeting. Gerry Connors (Pennsylvania), James Reynolds (Illinois), and Dean Hoffman (formerly of the USTA) each came prepared to address those in attendance.
Connors was the first to address the group. Christner gave a brief background on his involvement in the industry. One interesting fact about Connors is that he has visited 184 different pari-mutual facilities. This includes both Standardbred and Thoroughbred racetracks. Connors informed those at the meeting he had first visited a racetrack when he was less than one year of age. Thus, he has had an interest in racing his entire life. He then shared some insight into the Pennsylvania racing program.
After 12-13 years of fighting for them, Pennsylvania passed slots legislation in 2004. Their bill allows for a total of 14 different slots venues in the state. These are broken down as: 7 at Racetracks (4 Harness & 3 Thoroughbred), 5 “Stand-Alone” Casinos (near major cities, strictly slots - no OTB wagering or table games), and 2 “Resort” Licenses (facilities for guests only).
Primarily, the focus has been on the slots at the tracks, with each facility having around a 2,000 machine capacity. Purses at all the racing facilities have seen a huge increase since slots have entered the picture. Further, Connors predicts purses increasing to “serious money” in the future.
Connors stated the projected play when all venues are operating is $30 Billion a year, with a 90% return rate to winning customers. This means the operational “win” per year = $3 Billion. This is the amount retained by people in the industry.
He then went on to breakdown the division of the “win” money:
34% State
48% Operators
9% Racing
5% Community and Economic Development
4% Local Communities
Connors then gave more detail about the breakdown he had shared. To help put these percentages in perspective, he explained the 48% to Pennsylvania Track Operators is more than the 20% in New York (where there are some problems), but less than 90% in places like New Jersey’s Atlantic City. Connors also highlighted the 5% earmarked for Community and Economic Development, noting this is to build up tourism. He also mentioned the 4% to Local Communities (even the smallest burrows) to be used for new roads, etc. He suggested using a press release whenever a check is presented to a community to help enhance the public image and bring attention to the good coming from the slots facilities. This led into his detailed discussion of the 9% going to Racing.
According to the projected slots revenues, 9% of the $3 Billion “win” is $270,000,000 ($270 Million). Of this amount, 50% goes to each of the two breeds of horses racing in Pennsylvania. This means $135 Million should be coming in to supplement harness racing in the future. Below is the allocation of those funds, which is all written in law.
80% to Overnight Purses = $108,000,000
16% to Breed Development:
8% to Sire Stakes = $10,800,000*
8% to Breeders Fund = $10,800,000
4% to Horsemen’s Benefits = $5,400,000
* Sire Stakes will also receive current share from wagering tax: approx. $3,000,000
Connors then explained a couple of the recipients listed. He said the Breeders Fund is a brand new program. It was created specifically for the breeders. Moreover, none of the money put into the fund is to be used for purses. Further, he noted the percentage going to Horsemen’s Benefits was mainly at the request of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. This group is concerned with what will happen to lifelong grooms as they age, etc. This money will go directly to the horsemen. It is not run through the racetracks.
Looking ahead, Connors said the Pennsylvania Sire Stakes program will get $14 Million annually at its peak. This does not include the nomination payments, sustaining payments, and starting fees, which will also go into the purses for the races.
When asked about the requirement to be eligible to the events, Connors explained the horses must only be sired by a stallion standing in Pennsylvania. To be registered in the state, stallions must be in Pennsylvania from February 15 through July 4 and have completed the appropriate paperwork. He also noted there is no stallion registration fee in Pennsylvania.
An example of the same concept recently approved by the Indiana Standardbred Advisory Board, some Pennsylvania stallions are doing dual hemisphere stallion duty. This scenario has its pros & cons, depending on the stallion. Connors pointed out the shuttling of stallions makes it important to look at the foaling date of horses to make sure no Pennsylvania money goes to pay for horses bred down under. The motivation behind their program is to help the industry in Pennsylvania, not on the other side of the world. While on the subject of benefit, Connors stated, “When dealing with the legislature, hammer away at agriculture and economic benefit.”
As far as payments
for the events, the sire stakes at the pari-mutuel tracks require a $50 yearling
nomination payment, 2-year-old sustaining payments of $150 & $400, a 3-year-old
sustaining payment of $500, and a $400 entry fee for each event. For the sire
stakes events at the fairs, there is a $5 yearling nomination payment,
2-year-old sustaining payments of $25 & $50, a 3-year-old sustaining payment of
$100, and a $50 entry fee for each event.
The second sire stakes mentioned are contested at the Pennsylvania fairs. These events will receive 20% of the funds available. At the peak of slots operation, this should be close to $3 Million for the 20 fair stops.
Connors then outlined the expected structure for the 2008 sire stakes, which should total $9 Million (or more). In the pari-mutuel events, there will be eight $150,000 PM Finals. However, the law written in the state says there can only be 4 of these events held per track. This means there can never be a “Million Dollar Super Night” because that would require 8 events on one card, which is against the law. Prior to the Finals, there will be four preliminary events (legs) sharing $200,000 per sex and gait.
For the fair events, there will be eight $20,000 Fair Finals. These preliminaries will be held at each of the 20 fair stops at 15 different venues, with $8,000 (or more) divided among the divisions of sex and gait. This is a huge contrast to the $3,800 average purse seen for the same events in 2007.
Sharing it has caused him many sleepless nights, Connors changed gears as he moved on to the next part of his presentation. He stated, “This is all the known. The next part is the scary part. It is the unknown…”
Pennsylvania has established the Pennsylvania Standardbred Breeders Development Fund (PSBDF). To help explain what is involved in the fund, Connors provided some definitions.
“Pennsylvania-Sired”: A horse fathered by a registered Pennsylvania stallion.
“Pennsylvania-Sired and Bred”: A horse fathered by a registered Pennsylvania stallion, and whose mother resided in Pennsylvania for 180 contiguous days, within which foaling occurred.
“Pennsylvania-Bred”: A horse fathered by a registered Pennsylvania stallion, but whose mother was not a “resident” as defined above.
Connors explained the breeders were the main focus of the creation of the definitions outlined. When asking the breeders in Pennsylvania for their opinion and the creation of awards, those replying felt they deserved the income as a benefit from slots in the state.
A task of the PSBDF was deciding who will receive the breeders’ awards in the state. Awards will be given to the breeders of Pennsylvania-Sired horses aged 2 to 5 racing in any Pennsylvania contest, including all fair races.
When explaining the reason for the 5-year-old cut-off date, Connors shared a quick story. The office of the PSBDF received a letter from someone who had received a $200 breeders’ award check. Within the letter, the author revealed they were no longer in the business, but did use the funds to go out for a nice dinner. This meant the economic stimulation to the industry was missing. As a result, the decision was made to end the awards for horses past the age of 5.
By only being available for races in Pennsylvania, it keeps the state from giving money to the people who sell horses for big money, but they go elsewhere to race. Under this program, the breeder of a fair horse is eligible to earn money. On the other hand, the breeder of the Hambletonian winner is not.
As he neared the end of his presentation, Connors explained the payout of the PSBDF money. Specifically, he said the $5 Million to be paid in 2008 will be based on the 2007 race results. The payment will be made to the breeders in one lump sum, instead of being issued monthly like some other racing jurisdictions. In the future, this sum could grow to nearly $11 Million for awards.
A breakdown of the breeders fund awards, all paid annually, was presented.
10% to Pennsylvania Stallion Owners
70% to Breeders of Pennsylvania “Sired & Bred” Horses (with residency requirement met)
20% to Breeders of Pennsylvania “Bred” Horses
Exact amounts of awards are determined by the performance of horses relative to all those in the pool. The award would be calculated by dividing the money earned by a breeder’s horses by the money earned by all horses in the category. In some cases, this could be a big amount. It rewards those produced AND racing in Pennsylvania.
When the floor was open for questions, committee member Gordon Tabor was the first to make an inquiry. Seeking comments and/or advice, he asked, “Can you tell us something about the capacity in Pennsylvania for boarding outside horses?” Connors responded by saying some people have built stallion stations or new operations to handle the need. Estimating 2/3 to 3/4 of the horses produced are registered to Pennsylvania people, he said they are not getting a lot of outside horses moving to Pennsylvania. In fact, he said he wished it were a problem in the state. Currently, they have more “Mom & Pop” operations of people breeding and raising horses. However, if the program takes off, Connors said he could see it happening.
Tabor then asked a question about the 2 tier breeders awards mentioned. He inquired, “What is your observation on incentive to improve the breed? If ‘Ma & Pa’ breed to ‘Ole Shep’, what is the incentive to improve?” Connors reply indicated the economics and improvement of the horses should assist with this. The “Old Shep” colt may have finished 3rd this year, but could only be 5th the next year and 7th the following year. This would indicate decreased earnings in the future, as the slots money comes along. Connors was quite frank in saying the industry is going to become more of business over time. Even at the fair level, he believes this will be the case. Unfortunately, some of the hobbyists will possibly be put out of business as the competition gets better. At the pari-mutuel tracks, event the bottom claimer is going up.
Mike Bowen then asked for a clarification concerning the breeders’ award checks, which Connors had stated would be paid in one check at the end of the year. Connors verified the award would be paid in one check, as soon as possible after the end of the year. Noting the system will not satisfy everyone, Connors acknowledged the fact some people would like to receive their money more often. He also noted the system may result in some breeders who will choose to keep their horses to get the extra money in breeders’ awards by racing within the state.
Tabor then asked about the verification process in place to make sure the mares meet the 180 day residency requirement. Connors noted there is a document required from either the breeder or the farm housing the mare. Basically, it states the horse was there for the specified amount of time. Part two of their verification sends inspectors into the field at least once to verify each horse is present. Offering some advice, Connors suggested not checking every single horse, but going back to make sure a horse was there again at a later date. This is the 3rd year for the system in Pennsylvania. With only one exception, Connors noted all the horses have been located in the place specified. The identity of each horse is verified by its registration number.
The next speaker to address the group was James Reynolds (Illinois). Christner introduced Reynolds and gave some information about his background in the industry, stating he has bred both Standardbreds and Thoroughbreds.
Reynolds opened his comments by stating he has always been interested in this topic. He also commended the committee on being open to a broad view of the options available for crafting the Indiana program.
He then went on to provide some information on the goals of a state bred incentive program.
When explaining who should benefit from the slots revenue, he listed State Government (the people), Racetrack Management, and Horsemen. The broad category of Horsemen includes stallion owners, mare owners, county fair horse owners, stake horse owners, and condition & claiming horse owners. However, these definitions are not necessarily clear and each individual tends to worry about their own group. The task of a breed development group is to make it all balance out and work.
Reynolds then listed some of the tools a group, state, racing commission, or advisory committee can use to help get to the goals from the beginning.
Restricted races have a few options.
a. Restricted Stake Races. Reynolds stated he is a fan of these events, which
get private investment. He said people invest money and participate in these
events. Furthermore, the quality does improve when these races are included in
a racing program. As long as people know the requirements, they will
participate. Examples of these events are state stakes races and other stakes
like the World Trotting Derby. These events do help with quality.
b. Big Deal Stake Races. These bring the “big pockets” to the state. Utilizing
things like a “Super Night” or $1 Million Bonus program do a lot to increase
quality.
Tabor then asked Reynolds some questions about the Restricted Stake Races mentioned. He asked, “Where does the money come from? What makes you in favor of these events? What is the economic benefit back to Illinois?” Reynolds responded by saying the stake payments going into the purses can come from outside the state. He feels the events help the economy of Illinois by giving trainers more horses. This creates more income for the trainers. Since they need more employees, it also means more jobs in the state.
Reynolds then stated he thinks Conceived and Foaled is the way to go for a breeding program. In his opinion, it has worked well in Illinois. He believes the restriction has lead to quality.
Next, Reynolds shared some hurdles when utilizing In-state Residency Rules. One option for establishing residence is farm ownership. Another is simple horse ownership. This includes owning a stallion, mare, or racehorse. Stating he had trouble trying to deal with figuring out a way to keep people from playing ownership games, Reynolds said he gave up on this concept because of problems policing it.
On the other hand, he feels controlling the location of various events is efficient. Included in this blanket terminology are Location of Conception, Location of Foaling, Location of Boarding, Location of Training, and Location of Racing. Of these events, the only one he does not favor is Location of Training. He said it is not a practical requirement. Over time, he feels it begins to cripple the sale of yearlings because it keeps people from being able to train in Florida, at their own farm, etc.
Reynolds then shared his thoughts on how to increase quantity of horses in the state. He said putting money in broodmare owner awards, county fairs, and lower class condition & claiming purses will lead to in increase in the number of horses produced in the state. Highlighting a key point, Reynolds pointed out the fact stallion owner awards are not listed here. He said these help keep the stallions in the state.
As far as quality,
Reynolds said there are several ways to aid in an increase in this area. One
option is putting money in high value restricted stake races. Another idea is
utilizing a $1 Million Bonus Program. In Illinois, the first bonus was earned
by an ordinary guy. Showing it was winnable led to an increase in yearling sale
prices. Distributing Owner Awards for state-bred horses in open company is also
effective. Reynolds noted this was originally a Thoroughbred idea in Illinois.
In fact, he said it is the only thing keeping the Thoroughbred program in
Illinois alive.
Reynolds then shared his vision of an ideal program:
Asked by Jessica
Barnes, Director of Standardbred Racing – IHRC, to share some Measurable
Economic Benefits we could see in Indiana, Reynolds listed the following:
Christner then made a comment, followed by a question. He said, “In Indiana, it is always mentioned that our broodmare quality is not there. With a closed door program, would the broodmare quality increase?” Reynolds replied by saying, “If big money is available, you will be shocked how quickly it increases.”
Tabor asked Reynolds if he believes Illinois is breeding a better animal with the restrictions in place there. Reynolds replied by saying, “Yes. The Thoroughbreds in Illinois are open and they have no quality. The quality of Standardbreds is good. The problem in Illinois is not having enough money available to increase quality.”
Sharing he has talked with representatives from many major farms with top mares, Tabor said the responses he received indicated they would not participate if they must come here to breed. With that in mind, he said, “Do you recommend restrictions to produce a top animal?” Reynolds replied with a one word answer. He said, “Absolutely!” Further, he said he believes the committee is worrying about the wrong end of the equation. He feels putting money out there in purses will cause them to come to the state. He said, “You will be shocked by the amount of money people will spend to get the quality up.”
As Reynolds presentation was ending, Connors added a closing thought. He said, “In Pennsylvania, the sire stakes are a fall back plan.” Giving an example, he said Donoto Hanover did not race in the sire stakes program, although his sire is a Pennsylvania. He has made all his starts in major stake events. Moreover, it is important to ask a very fundamental question when making a final decision in this matter. Where do you want to be?
After a short break, Christner introduced Hoffman, sharing some details of his background and education. He noted Hoffman currently runs his own communications firm in Ohio. Hoffman then addressed those in attendance.
Hoffman opened his comments by stating, “I will tell you upfront that I’ve never liked the fact many years ago states began to build high fences around their borders and told others to keep out. I think that is short-sighted.” He noted it is a good start and healthy sign in Indiana to allow those from outside the state to come and share their insight and experience.
Differing from all the other speakers addressing the committee at any of the other meetings, Hoffman said it is paramount to remember another group of people, the customer. These are the fans and bettors at the track. Noting these individuals do not care about the official residence of the people or the state eligibility of the horses on the track, Hoffman stated they simply want the best racing possible. The best racing also includes integrity. At this point, he took the opportunity to commend the efforts of the Indiana Horse Racing Commission (IHRC) to ensure integrity in the state. Hoffman said Indiana must continue to stand tall and keep a clean image in the industry. He said, “Racing cannot rely on subsidies from slots forever; it must change to stand on its own in the marketplace.”
Hoffman then reflected on the long and proud history of harness racing in Indiana. The first Standardbred Triple Crown winner was raised in Indiana. Four of the first 10 Little Brown Jug winners were sired in Indiana. The great stallion Star’s Pride was bred in Indiana and sold at a sale in Indianapolis. Admitting these events were all years ago, Hoffman noted the current challenge is restoring the status of Indiana breeding so it is a major national factor.
In Hoffman’s opinion, a state program should employ as few restrictions as possible. More restrictions, he added, reduces interest in a program. Using a parallel of a baseball team to convey his point, Hoffman shared an example. He said, “If Indiana were seeking to have major league baseball, is it likely that it would be a requirement that all the players be born in Indiana as a way to encourage youngsters to play baseball?” Hoffman continued, “You could have a baseball team comprised of nothing but Indiana natives, but it likely wouldn’t be competitive with other teams not subject to those restrictions.”
Hoffman said he
encouraged everyone to look at the bigger picture. To illustrate his point, he
shared the landscape of racing in Ohio when he first began in the business. At
that time, horses could be raced in state-funded events if they met one of these
three requirements:
Under this format,
the owner of the horse, the breeder of the horse, and the owner of the stallion
were treated equally in determining eligibility for races funded by state money.
Later, Ohio went to a Sire Stakes program. This resulted in more Ohio sired horses racing, but there was not as much quality or diversity. He then reiterated, “When you restrict competition, you restrict interest in racing.” Hoffman said restrictions and sire stakes events would certainly encourage stallions to locate here, but it may not increase the quality or benefit agriculture. This format benefits only the stallion owner, who may not even be a resident of the state.
Hoffman urged the committee to look past the need to be protectionists and keep the big picture in mind. He recommended shying away from restrictions. Giving some examples of protectionism gone wild, Hoffman said it is a way to keep the competition less. In all of the examples, not one was looking out for the customer and what is best for the industry. They were looking out for a few self-serving individuals. Instead, Hoffman recommended keeping the customer in mind and giving them the best product possible.
Concluding his prepared comments, Hoffman said, “You have a difficult task to balance all the various components of Standardbred breeding in Indiana – you have the broodmare owner and the stallion owner – and yet you must always keep in mind that we are not breeding horses in a vacuum. We are breeding horses to race and for people to watch and bet on – and therefore we should strive to put the best possible product on the track. I urge you to strive for excellence so that Indiana can return to its rightful place as a leader in Standardbred breeding.”
Hoffman then took questions from those in attendance. Tabor was the first to pose an inquiry. He asked, “If we, in Indiana, would like to be on a national level competitive-wise and breed the best product, knowing that is the greatest economic impact, would you recommend restrictions or no restrictions?” Hoffman hesitated before replying, “I would have to think about the in’s and out’s of it, but I would probably say none. Fewer restrictions are better. Always think in terms of putting the best quality horse on the track. Don’t think about protecting a certain group of individuals.”
Tabor then switched gears and brought up breeder awards. He noted there are two opposing positions. From one view, the breeder gets rewarded when he sells a yearling for a higher price. On the other hand, some feel giving a reward for breeding successful animals gives them revenue to invest in improving the bloodlines. Hoffman said he leans more toward the first option mentioned. This is mainly because option two means less money in the purse account. Without the money in the pocket of owners, they cannot spend it to give it back to the breeders. Giving the breeders money from the purse account is counterproductive.
Tabor also asked Hoffman for his opinion of Owner Awards. Hoffman indicated their reward is the purse and getting their picture taken.
Connors then seized the opportunity to thank Hoffman for bringing up the fans and customers. He said the Pennsylvania Gaming Board is interested in attracting people to the industry. It is a way to get away from the subsidies of slots. Hoffman added it is about putting on the best possible show for the public. He repeated his previous point by saying the patrons do not care where the horses are sired. They want a competitive product.
Tabor asked if there was any question that having better horses racing will get more people in the stands. Hoffman said the two do go together. Better quality racing will result in a more desirable signal. The bettors go for more quality racing. For example, the Meadowlands signal sells well and people like to bet it.
Jack Holton then
asked if marketing should focus on live racing or just signal. Hoffman
responded by saying live racing is the most important. In a few years, the
legislature would NOT like to go to a facility and see full slots parlor, but no
one at the races. That could be very bad for the industry down the road.
The next item on the agenda was New Business. It was at this time that Barnes addressed the committee. She shared her views on some of the issues currently facing the committee.
Barnes opened her comments by saying she has heard opinions from many experts in the industry, as well as talked with various horsemen. She has been doing this to aid in forming an opinion of the task at hand. Over the past two months, Barnes said she has been asked by some members of the Indiana Standardbred Breed Development Advisory Committee, Indiana Standardbred Advisory Board, horsemen, and even her boss – Joe Gorajec – about her position. Until this point, she had been reluctant to offer her opinion, because she wanted to keep an open mind throughout the process. Moreover, she wanted to share her thoughts with the Breed Development committee first. Before stating her opinions, she made it clear she was only representing herself. Her comments were independent of the IHRC and/or its Executive Director.
In order to be sure she did not omit any important details, Barnes read from prepared remarks. She began by saying, “In order to build a successful program, you must know what you want to achieve. You must define what our goals are. After all, without goals, what are we aiming for?” Barnes said she strongly believes there are two important goals of the Indiana Standardbred Breed Development Program. They can be derived from the mission statement: “Breed Development Funds have been established to promote the breeding of horses while stimulating the agribusiness sector of the state’s economy”.
The two equally important goals are:
Barnes said her biggest challenge when attempting to formulate her position has been trying to develop a way to reach both of these goals. She has struggled most with coming up with a way to encourage measurable economic impact in the state, while still promoting quality. Taking care to emphasis measurable, Barnes said she firmly believes it must be finite and measurable, not merely a trickle down effect being seen. This is important not only for justifying funds going to Breed Development, but also needed to defend those at some point to Indiana’s government leaders. With the possible growth of revenue resulting from slots, Barnes said she is fearful someday the legislators will attempt to divert some or all of the money elsewhere. For this reason, there needs to be a way to show it is benefiting the taxpayers of Indiana.
With this in mind, Barnes said the program she is recommending is one providing added incentives to a horse that is Indiana Sired and Bred, but also gives racing opportunities to a horse that is only Indiana Sired.
Barnes then
expanded on her vision for the Indiana Sire Stakes. In her opinion, eligibility
to these events should not change. Any horse that is Indiana Sired should be
eligible to compete. Furthermore, it should remain the premier stake in
Indiana. She said she believes the goal should be to have Indiana Sired and
Bred horses winning these events. To help move toward this goal, incentives
should be put in place for horses that are Indiana Sired and Bred, defined as
sired by an Indiana stallion, foaled by a mare residing in the state from the
time of conception until December 31 of the foaling year, and remains in the
state until a date determined by this committee. She added the horse or its
mare does not have to be Indiana owned, nor does the breeder have to be from
Indiana. She is only asking for a commitment to Indiana in order to be eligible
for the added incentives.
Next, Barnes defined the added incentives mentioned. She said, “An Indiana Sired and Bred horse would be the only category of horse eligible to the Indiana Sired Fair Circuit (ISFC) Program, Breeder’s Awards, and a Bonus Program. Other Breed Development races, such as mini-series and overnights funded by the Breed Development fund could be written as first preference Indiana Sired and Bred and second preference Indiana Sired. In the long term, when the population of Indiana Sired and Bred horses allows (understanding this will not be until at least 2011), additional Late Closers could be written for this class of horses.”
Barnes then explained her rationale for suggesting the implementation of added incentives for Indiana Sired and Bred horses. She noted articles and advertisements within newspapers offering incentives to businesses choosing to locate in Indiana. Barnes feels we need to have enough incentives in place to encourage operations to move or create new operations in Indiana. Putting additional incentives in place adds value to horses and hopefully provides a reason to consider investing more in Indiana.
Noting some may argue incentives should be in the form of Breeder’s Awards, Barnes said she disagrees with this idea. While admitting Breeder’s Awards do help the breeders, she said they do nothing to enhance the value of the horses produced. Barnes stated, “In theory, by enhancing the value of a horse that is Indiana Sired and Bred, the horse should be more valuable than a horse of the same caliber that is only Indiana Sired. This should be an incentive for breeders to make a greater commitment to Indiana.”
Further, Barnes said she thinks the incentives for and Indiana Sired and Bred horse must total more than that of a horse that is only Indiana Sired. She said the sire stakes can still have the largest purses in the state and be the premier race, but would like to make sure an Indiana Sired and Bred horse has the opportunity to race for more money than a horse that is only Indiana Sired. In her opinion, this is the best way to encourage economic growth and development in Indiana.
Barnes also mentioned discussion she has heard about another class of horses. These are those that are only Indiana Bred. Noting she had not included the category in her recommendation, she said she is not opposed to the creation of something for this type of horse, as long as the Breed Development Funds do not get spread too thin.
Nearing the end of her comments, Barnes said she knew her position would not be popular with everyone. It is impossible to please all those involved in the industry. She said, “…sometimes you have to take risks to gain greatness and this is what I believe Indiana has to do. The committee has to think outside the box, be willing to at least take a risk to try something new, and have the wisdom to make changes if it does not work.”
She left the committee with a few thoughts to consider before making their final decision. First, she encouraged them to define goals for the program. Second, she would like to see them articulate how the program will achieve those goals. Finally, she stated, “I would also like to add that I have confidence in these three fine gentlemen’s ability to make the right decision for Breed Development. They were appointed not only for their knowledge of the industry, but also for their ability to keep an open mind and consider all input that has been given. I trust they will be able to craft a program that will benefit not only the horse industry in Indiana, but also the citizens of this great State.”
Christner then reminded everyone they are still taking input from those in the industry until September 15, 2007. Then, they will be scheduling a meeting to make decisions. The next IHRC meeting is set for September 27, 2007. They plan to have a recommendation ready at that time.
With nothing further on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned. The next Breed Development meeting will be scheduled via Barnes and notices will be distributed throughout the industry.