Maybe I am not making my own position clear....Kaykay, Minimor---I certainly do NOT disagree with your assessments...FIRST, enforce existing rules; EQUALLY IMPORTANT, do so with some "teeth"; there should BE reparcussions for cheating/attempting to do so, and penalties MUST BE both assessed AND carried out! I think about everyone involved with showing would agree; certainly, these observations have been made, again and again, on this subject---and, they are CORRECT!
However, instead of just making pronouncements that virtually ALL could agree with, why not be proactive to TRY to improve the situation?? Sure(and sad to say, IMO, for I go back to a time when there were demonstrably LESS people who were inclined to cheat--not 'none', but LESS...I was there), there probably WILL 'always' be those who put more effort into cheating than into doing a GOOD job(and how PITIFULLY SAD is that??)--but, are we then to just take the attitude that we might as well 'throw up our hands', because it is felt we can't 'stop' the cheats entirely? I believe it better to try to craft 'better' ways to make it more difficult to be a cheater...even if we can't 'stop them all'. I also believe that much of the current problems arose from the MINIATURE REGISTRIES' governing bodies' lack of will, NOT just from the memberships' lack of same...when you are 'afraid' to stand up for your stated principles, apparently for fear of 'losing' the participation of those with money and/or power, you have sounded your own death knell, IMO.
BTW, I want to make it clear that I am speaking FOR MYSELF in stating these views, NOT for C.A.R.E. ...however, I am a participant in C.A.R.E. largely BECAUSE it is a group who had the gumption to try to take action, using facts, to require a registry to LIVE UP TO ITS OWN RULES--in lieu of just grumbling about it--AND is also attempting, in the same manner, to effect more democratic practices on the part of said registry.
Minimor, I agree that there is really nothing 'wrong' with the current measuring 'sticks', but I do feel that a properly designed and 'built' wicket, used to determine what height 'range' a horse falls within,could work 'better'. Of course it would need to be well and properly designed and built, checked for accuracy(same as what's currently in use!), and with proper training in its use, might well 'improve' the process. Consider, for instance:not having to take the time to try to determine an 'exact' height in miniscule detail(after all, you have, in most cases, 2" increments, so what matters is determining on which side of the incremental 'break' a horse rightly belongs, at least for the show ring).
I enjoy 'constructing' things, and planning the construction thereof; I do NOT think I could construct a 'pipe' wicket such as those pictured on the other thread, made by a Canadian, I believe....but I'd bet a good machine shop, with a pipe bender and accurate measurment devices, surely could! Certainly, the 'reviews' by users of such(see the other thread) are excellent....why should we not seriously consider such a device? Instead of negatism, how about some 'positivism'??