Welcome to “Voices,” our public forum where horsemen and horsewomen are able to share their thoughts and concerns about the important issues facing the Thoroughbred racing and breeding industry. All opinions are welcome, and we value yours!
All comments must be submitted by email. Be sure to write “Voices” in your subject line, and include your name, city and state in your message. Fictitious names are not allowed.
Content that promotes a commercial interest or product, or content that is libelous, defamatory or abusive will not be accepted. The opinions expressed below are not necessarily those of the owners and/or hosts of this website, and Thoroughbred Information Agency shall not be held responsible for content.
We also invite you to join the conversation on our Facebook and Twitter pages.
Don Engel, Rohnert Park, CA:
I've been out of the Thoroughbred business since my retirement on November 1 and as of January 1 I am no longer a CTBA member, but I'm still on the CTBA mailing list, so the other day I received an invitation to attend the CTBA's Annual Meeting and Awards Dinner on February 17 at the Balboa Bay Club and Resort in Newport Beach. I think the place could properly be described as "posh."
The ticket for the event is a, to me, breathtaking $150 per person. That's $300 per couple. But the CTBA has negotiated a special room rate at the Balboa Bay Club for those attending the affair: $265 per night. (The Balboa Bay Club website offers rooms for AAA or AARP members at $250 for the night of February 17.)
For most people, the economy is sliding downward in a recession threatening to become a depression. For the CTBA to stage such an upscale event at a time like this is, at the very least, inappropriate.
During the time that I was a CTBA member, from 1960 through 2008, I witnessed a gradual but steady erosion of the connection between the CTBA and its members. I observed, and often participated in, spirited exchanges between breeders and CTBA leaders, most prominently at the organization's annual membership meetings.
In the earlier years, there was no connection between an awards ceremony and the membership meeting. The annual awards were at one time presented during an intermission at CTBA sales. Later, there was an awards luncheon that followed the membership meeting. At some time not too long ago, the awards luncheon became a dinner. The price for the awards event gradually increased until it now has reached a level that I have to call "obscene."
The latest invitation that I received stated that the membership meeting - now called a "business" meeting - would be held at 5 p.m., followed by cocktails at 6 p.m. and dinner at 7 p.m. It may be that the "business" meeting is not a "membership" meeting. I have no way of knowing.
What I do infer is that with one hour allocated for that meeting, nobody expects much to happen. What I also infer is that nobody can be expected to attend who isn't also going to stay for cocktails and dinner. Newport Beach is not a place many breeders are likely to drive to in order to attend a one-hour meeting with no published agenda.
It's certainly clear that breeders who live outside the Los Angeles area will have to make a major effort in order to get to Newport Beach. Northern Californians are effectively excluded.
But who is really excluded is any CTBA member who has to think twice before spending $150 (or $300 for a couple) in order to watch other people congratulate each other.
It finally comes down to this: It's a class issue. The CTBA has now evolved into a small group of the elite, having little to do with its grass-roots membership, who, one fears, are of interest to the CTBA only as the source of revenue from the exorbitant and unnecessary registration fees that it charges breeders for the right to collect the incentive awards mandated by state law, a law which generously assigns 5% of the awards fund to the CTBA to do whatever it is that the CTBA does.
That invitation that I received pretty much makes a statement. I'm no longer a breeder or a CTBA member, but I nevertheless mourn the fact that the CTBA no longer has any reason to exist, except as a vehicle for its leaders to celebrate their own importance.
It's probably time for California breeders to form an organization to promote their interests - if there are any breeders left. Perhaps they could call it the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association.
January 13, 2009
1:48 p.m.
|
|
Ginny Johnston, Tularosa, NM:
Hey everyone, Happy Holidays. I do wonder though if everyone has just given up. No one seems to have anything to say about anything. I suppose everyone is self-absorbed and focusing on themselves. It would be nice to see some suggestions on how to pull the horse industry up instead of down. Ideas can create conversation and maybe solutions to many problems.
How about some action here...? We need to help one another, not keep our distance.
January 4, 2009
9:21 a.m.
|
|
Patrick J. Hurley (Former CTBA Board of Directors Member), Medford, OR:
If one looks closely at the CTBA web site and analyses the CTBA Stallion Season Auction, one does not have to look far to see why the California breeder has issues with the breeding industry. Even the members of the CTBA Board of Directors do not include their better stallions in the auction. Maybe a particular CTBA Director does not own the stallion, but you would think when they stand the stallions at their farm, they would have the owners of the stallion become more involved within the industry.
The stallion awards are very good for the stallion owners, but the benefactors of these awards do not put a stallion season up for auction. Is it selfishness or greed? The most successful stallions are not on this list. Stallions such as Unusual Heat, Cee's Tizzy, Benchmark, Bertrando, Tribal Rule, Old Topper, Memo, Salt Lake, Stormin Fever, Deputy Commander, etc. are among the most prominent stallions in the State of California and have the highest breeding fees are not in the auction. One can only wonder why? Apparently the CTBA carries no clout with the stallion owners.
The CTBA does even publish the results of the auction and the fees on the stallion, only the aggregate total. Another closely kept secret.
Maybe it is because the money that the CTBA receives from the auction is not beneficial to the breeders of California. The money raised from the auction by the CTBA goes into the Political Action Committee (PAC) Fund which in turn makes the donations to various legislators who are suppose to help the horse industry. But do the politicians actually help the breeders or is it more for racing? Does the CTBA make contributions to the CHRB? Who makes the final decision as to who is suppose to receive the funds? The CTBA does not make public how the money is spent. All we can do is believe the CTBA, just as the voters in Illinois trust their governor.
It would be appropriate if the Directors of the CTBA informed the breeders of California who receives the money from PAC. Maybe change will come just like the President-elect has promised.
December 24, 2008
4:24 p.m.
|
|
Ginny Johnston, Tularosa, NM:
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, everyone! Let us all hope for Hollywood Park to open again.
December 22, 2008
6:02 p.m.
|
|
Jerry McMahon (Barretts President and General Manager), Pomona, CA:
With no current axe to grind, I thought it would be appropriate for me to address Mr. Hurley’s questions and comments.
Regarding the October Mixed Sale, the market spoke loud and clear. One hundred and forty no-bids pretty much says it all. Under current economic conditions, just which breeders are pining away to enter horses next fall? If you are out there, please contact Barretts’ new management with a list of horses, and I am sure they will respond accordingly.
Regarding the Barretts/CTBA Yearling Sale, the term “preferred” is an accepted industry term to describe a sale where the product cannot be described as “select” from a national standpoint, but where there is a process that screens out the lower-rated horses. There is no specific standard as to where to draw the line on this. Pedigrees are matched with conformation scores, and a percentage of the yearlings deemed most marketable are included. The “bubble” horses are always a problem no matter what process is used. I can only attest that in our case, the process was always aimed at being fair in terms of seeking the best yearlings available. If a truly “select” format were utilized, the catalog would be too small to attract enough buyers. Just look at what happened at the later Del Mar yearling sales under much better economic conditions.
Yes, our yearling market is soft and getting softer, however don’t try to pin this on the CTBA directors. Here are the real culprits:
- chaos in our racing industry;
- a severely deteriorating economy;
- a rapidly aging stallion population;
- very little reinvestment in quality broodmares.
In case anyone hasn’t noticed, Cal-bred yearlings haven’t been selling any better in Kentucky. Bill Baker can provide a spreadsheet outlining that performance over the past few years.
Lastly, this is not a time to throw stones at other industry members. This is a time to collaborate in a constructive manner in order to deal with the existing circumstances. I am therefore very encouraged by the current initiative proposed by the CTBA, TOC and California Racing Secretaries, that would provide greatly increased incentives to owners of quality California-bred runners. That kind of thinking might just represent a turning point in getting potential buyers to pay more attention to California-bred sale yearlings. The decision to conduct the "preferred" yearling sale just after the 2009 Cal Cup, hopefully, is a move in the same direction.
December 16, 2008
11:35 a.m.
|
|
Patrick J. Hurley (Former CTBA Board of Directors Member), Medford, OR:
What plans does the CTBA have for the California breeders with the closing of the Barretts October Mixed Sale? The breeders of California always suffer, even with the "PREFERRED" yearling sale. Is it a preferred sale? Sure, the CTBA and Barretts call it a preferred sale, but the actual sale is more like a "dog and pony" show.
Yes, yearlings are inspected, but then the inspectors are doing what? They don’t even inform the owners of the results. Exactly what guidelines are followed? Only Doug and Jerry know, and Jerry has left.
If that was a select sale, why does the sale average and median decline so much? This past select sale had four no-bids, 18 yearlings that had RNA for $5,000 or less and 15 yearlings that had a RNA of $5,001 thru $10,000. This was approximately 18% of the yearlings that went through the ring. Yearlings that did sell was as dismal as one can see: 47 yearlings sold for less than $5,000 and another 35 sold between $5,001 and $10,000. This represents 82 out of the 149 yearlings that did sell. This equates to approximately 55% that failed to sell over $10,000.
Out of the top 20 selling prices, 11 yearlings were by out-of-state sires, and of the remaining nine that sold, four were by Tribal Rule and two by Unusual Heat. Our breeding industry is not being helped or guided by the CTBA Board.
The CTBA Board is made up of several major breeders. Where do they sell their best horses? Why, of course, in Kentucky. They send their best mares to Kentucky. Yes, more money is in Kentucky, but are the directors of the CTBA really supporting California breeders, or the industry in California?
Now that Barretts is closing the October mixed sale, what are the California breeders to do? What is the plan for the CTBA to support our industry?
December 13, 2008
2:20 p.m.
|
|
Larry Stevens, Kennewick, WA:
Jeff and Patrick, I guess by now that you picture the CTBA officers and Board sitting around at a cocktail party saying, "Boy, isn't this fun. It isn't very hard to get elected, and once you get on there is hardly anyone that will run against you. Better yet, we don't really have to do much other than attend our socials, and we can always say that we served (wrong word) on the Board of the CTBA even though we didn't do anything."
November 21, 2008
2:19 p.m.
|
|
Larry Stevens, Kennewick, WA:
Just received the California Thoroughbred magazine, where I learned of the passing of Lev Fanning, a quiet man but very knowledgeable.
When I think of him, I always picture him walking along with his hands clasped behind his back. That was his trademark to me. Lev and I became acquainted back in the good ole days in Hemet, CA (1970). He was the farm manager at Hemacinto Stables and I was the breeding manager at California Stock Farm.
Almost 23 years later, we had the opportunity to renew our friendship at San Luis Rey Downs. He was training horses there while I was the manager.
He'll be missed, and my condolences to his family.
November 12, 2008
11:57 a.m.
|
|
Ginny Johnston, Tularosa, NM:
Ok, everyone. Don is retired. Surely you all have something to say about the happenings with racing, especially the TOC not allowing ADW wagering at Hollywood Park. Wagering was up 70% at Zia Park for the New Mexico Cup. What is going on in California? Someone must have an opinion.
If not, we have plenty of horse property for sale here at cheap prices compared to California. And trainers cost $40 a day and purses are better or as good in most cases than Northern California. Anyone want to move?
November 11, 2008
5:25 p.m.
|
|
Larry Stevens, Kennewick, WA:
It seems that in the life of a very successful racing colt, practically all of them if they are syndicated, they reach a point where their value at stud far exceeds their value on the track.
This is the case with Big Brown. One misplaced step and all his value could go down the drain. We've seen it happen!
As good as it would be for racing, if he continued, we have to accept the fact that the risks involved are great.
Robert Clay says that they have to agree "mutually" in order to change the contract. I think Michael Ivarone would have a hard sell to the rest of his group in getting them to leave Big Brown on the track.
What if he gets beat in this next start against older horses?
November 11, 2008
2:11 p.m.
|
|
Priscilla Clark, Tehachapi, CA:
Ben Warren's participation at that sale was under my radar; however, I saw a great number of horses that got homes for purposes other than commercial exploitation, for which they were poorly bred and prepared. I guess that purchase might have been a portent of an oncoming disaster at Warren's.
November 11, 2008
12:29 a.m.
|
|
Patrick J. Hurley (Former CTBA Board of Directors Member), Medford, OR:
It is interesting to see the difference in the TOC and the CTBA. In the latest issue of the TOC magazine, they write about their election for their Board of Directors and ask for participants, and the CTBA does not say anything in their magazine about the upcoming elections for the CTBA Board of Directors.
The CTBA has never announced about the procedure on how members can submit applications to run for the CTBA Board. The annual elections and getting the membership involved to help select the Board of Directors comes by ballot. It must be a closely kept secret on how to submit an application for the CTBA Board. Naturally, the General Manager, Doug Burge, will deny that this is not so, but seeing is believing when you cannot find any information published about the annual election. Has anyone seen what Board members of the CTBA will have their term expire?
In reality, the CTBA Board will poll the current Board and see who wants to return and if anyone wants to leave, they will quietly ask individuals if they wish to run for the Board.
November 4, 2008
4:43 p.m.
|
|
Al Andrews, San Diego, CA:
I'm glad that somebody is giving some thought to the desperate plight of the California breeder, but I think that peeling off just a little of breeder's awards and putting that into purses won't do a thing to help matters.
It has to be the whole thing or nothing. It has to be enough to make a big difference, not just nibbling at the problem.
October 23, 2008
4:43 p.m.
|
|
Don Sandri, Hayward, CA:
I agree with Don's thoughts on allocating Cal-Bred Race Fund money to the demand side. Anything that would increase purse size would surely help.
I don't think we throw the supply side baby out with the bathwater but should tweak the fund allocation by eliminating awards for low level maidens (i.e. M $8000-$12,500) and low level NW2 (i.e. $2500-$10,000). This would, essentially, penalize those breeders who produce marginal foals and encourage those who produce a competitive animal.
The key is to increase the size of purses. Both the CTBA and TOC should partner their substantial resources in a concerted effort to develop a strategy that will achieve this critical goal. A media platform is readily available via TVG and HRTV to educate and build consensus.
October 23, 2008
10:15 a.m.
|
|
Patricia Jackson, San Francisco, CA:
Don Engel really hit the nail right on the head when he said the CTBA is like a teenager that just looks away and won't say anything. Problems never never ever get solved that way.
October 22, 2008
5:11 p.m.
|
|
Larry Stevens, Kennewick, WA:
I'm really not surprised that most board members of the CTBA chose to remain silent to Don's questions. Those that chose to contact him and not be heard on record are there just for the "glory," if you want to use that term for someone that might be in a position to help and does nothing.
Raising horses falls under an agriculture product and should be engaged in with that in mind, but without being government subsidized. We as breeders have to be smart enough to govern our own product which includes keeping it marketable.
I was raised on a farm so I am somewhat familiar with government subsidized products. Anyone in agriculture knows that if there is an over abundance in any given crop prices will be down and if the trend continues it soon gets to the point that you can't make money with it. It even gets so cheap that the government steps in and puts a subsidy or support price on it instead of letting supply and demand take care of the problem. Remember the government paying Billy Sol Estes for storing wheat or the soil bank program where they paid you to keep your land out of production. There still might be allotments on wheat, soybeans, sugar beets, and others.
When Ezra Taft Benson was Secretary of Agriculture he fought for supply and demand and keep government out of it.
Enough said about that, but until the breeders will produce less mediocre horses and more of higher quality sale prices will remain much as they are now and I think the way to do that is to change the way Cal-bred money is distributed.
Put it all in the purses and see what happens. Sure there are those that will get out of the business, but those that choose to stay in will produce a more quality foal which will increase the demand. Overproduction will stop.
I have seen so many breeders that had some good mares and then decided to keep daughters of them, even if they did not run, and put them in their broodmare band only to finally run out of room and watch the quality go down that soon they have a dispersal and leave the business.
We still see many horses in sale catalogs that shouldn't even be in there, and it has always amazed me how upset those owners are with the price. Those horses aren't worth two fresh eggs on a Sunday morning!
I'm sure the CTBA doesn't have a plan, but if not, try shifting the money and see what happens. The one that is being used now isn't working!
October 22, 2008
9:21 a.m.
|
|
Jean Marie Smith, Pasadena, CA:
Larry Stevens hit it right on the head--NO legislative or executive support for the industry. As long as the Governor and the Indians in California are married there will be no aid to the horse industry. And, as long as everyone stays divided on whose fault this all is, there will be no progress. Everyone needs to get together now and do something to get some funding for the horse industry.
Cutting race dates would be beneficial. And change the laws that stagnate Los Alamitos and only allow maximum $5,000 claiming and 4 1/2 furlong races for thoroughbreds. Increase the quality of racing there by allowing stakes and higher claiming races at 6 1/2 furlongs and 1 1/16 miles. They do that in other states with small tracks and purses are double or more that of Los Alamitos. Casinos help, but better racing will too. Quality will attract more interest. They come to see the best Quarter Horses, let the Thoroughbreds show they can be quality as well.
There are no top horses in the California yearling sales. Either be sired by Kentucky sires or no price will be paid. Since when did Cee's Tizzy, In Excess, and Unusual Heat deserve to have such low sale averages? They have sired horses of quality matching many in Kentucky or Florida. But there is no sale support to attract the top buyers.
When the top breeders keep sending the top mares to Kentucky to be bred they deplete the sale quality we could breed in California. Why not give incentive to foal and sell them in California? The breed-back rule I am afraid takes away the incentive since there must be inferior stallions in California and allowing the California-conceived foals to compete for Cal-bred purses is not helpful either. Gives reason to keep breeding to the Kentucky stallions.
I guess the Governor was helping, or at least thought so. I see over and over California breeders selling top Cal-breds in Kentucky or foaling their best in Kentucky. Just think if we had quality Storm Cat, A. P. Indy and Smart Strike yearlings selling here. The buyers would come for sure. The same for mixed sales - no quality! It is the thing to offer your best mares in Kentucky. $$$$ rule. Seeing that a good stallion by Unusual Heat averages far less than he should makes you wonder. What would he do in Kentucky? Why has he not moved to Kentucky?
When a Cal-bred breaks its maiden out of state, pay a premium to the breeder and the owner who bought the horse. Make them wanted. People come from all around and buy the Cal-bred to race--it breaks its maiden out of state and the breeder is out of luck. If Barretts and the CTBA wined and dined the buyers to come to California sales like they do in Kentucky, maybe we would get more buyers. I noticed a lot of trainers at the California sales when we used to go but they never seemed to actually be actively buying. It is nice to be seen at a sale, but do something. You can't claim every Lava Man. Some are there to be bought.
I think there are enough intelligent leadership folks in California to get things going but without help from the legislature and the governor you are sunk. What happens to all that money that went to the PAC fund for CTBA? Who is the lobbyist? Get a new one and get some results.
The way things seem to be going, no one will be breeding much longer if something isn't done. This is the rich man's sport and unfortunately the small breeders are paying the price. Can't fill fields and support farms if everyone drops out. Small breeders were part of the backbone of the breeding industry. We are dropping out; can the big guys pull it together? I would like to hope for the best, but it looks pretty grim.
October 15, 2008
7:22 p.m.
|
|
Larry Stevens, Kennewick, WA:
Since our latest topic of the future of the TB racing industry in CA is out of my field, and I'm out of state as well, I find myself somewhat in muddy waters.
California politics was the early cause of the fate of the TB industry and it still is today. How many of you remember about 40 years or so ago when California racing was a big time affair? I know that Don does. Back then there was a law on the books that placed a very heavy tax on the value of horses. If you had a stallion or mare (not sure about many mares) that had a value of $1,000,000, you had to pay a tax of $100,000 per year to leave it in the State of California.
Consequently those horses made their way to Kentucky, thereby helping that state and leaving Cal breeders to compete with lesser quality stock. It wasn't until Governor Reagan came aboard and changed that law and the most that could be taxed was $1,000. I think that is correct, but I do know that it was about that and it seemed to help the industry.
Now you are faced with the political giants again who could help save a dying industry that has a great potential to generate money for many businesses throughout the state.
I'm speaking of your current Governor Arnold. He has proven not to be a friend of racing, even though his campaign sounded like he was. Instead, he sided with the Indian gaming groups and gave them more leeway. This year alone three So. Cal. tribes received a gift when they were allowed to expand their casinos from 8,000 slot machines to 25,000 machines. Tracks are prohibited from having any. So much for equality!
I think the time has come where all racing facets need to come together, because this is not just a TB problem. All horse racing needs more money. What if the CTBA, TOC, PCQHRA (Pacific Coast QH Racing Assn.) and the Harness Racing Assn. got together. There surely must be enough money there to find an excellent lobbyist who could get a bill to the Legislature and ask for only 1% of all casino money in CA go to Cal-bred horses.
Now remember that this money would have to be divided up equally and not all to just one breed. Is it possible?? It's the only sure quick way I can think of to help with purses, if that is the solution.
I think John Harris is correct when he says that you can find ground in CA that is conducive to raising great horses without it being worth $50,000 or more per acre. I'm sure that is why Old English Rancho moved north.
Certainly everyone is correct in saying the costs keep increasing. They are up here also. Our farm in So. Cal. is paying $265 per ton for alfalfa delivered. My last load here in WA cost us $270 per ton delivered.
Then as stated before we need to concentrate in raising a better product. That comes by culling the mares and breeding to the best stallions possible.
I don't know if any of this makes sense or not, but I'm sure someone will tell me!
October 15, 2008
4:40 p.m.
|
|
Gretchen Graves and Janet Griffin, Bangtail Farm, Mad River, CA:
Perhaps the stakeholders in California breeding might consider the value of the brainstorming that a SWOT Analysis brings to the table. Small business and non-profits have found this method invaluable over time. Usually the Boards that we have previously been members hold a session twice a year. (S Strengths W Weaknesses O Opportunities T threats.)
Stakeholders could be CTBA Board Members, Employees, TOC, Race Track Executives, etc. A Moderator that knows the lingo but does not have a stake in the process is usually a person that keeps everyone on track and lists the items on a large board. A the end of the session the items are rated as the most important to the least. The finished SWOT Analysis could be sent to CTBA members with spaces for ideas from the floor (so to speak) to be returned and tallied.
We have found the main benefit to a SWOT Analysis to be opening up the minds and creativity of the very bright people involved. Maybe we need some new ideas and to nurture the creative intelligence in our industry with out the finger pointing that seems to be the norm right now.
October 15, 2008
9:43 a.m.
|
|
Larry Bollmann, Loleta, CA:
I've only been a CTBA member for 15 years and have never met Mr. DeBurgh or many of the directors, including Mr. Johnson, the representative for Northern California, where our farm is located. Actually, the only CTBA representatives that have been at our farm are the sale inspectors (Tom Bunn, Dan Dayton, and Eric Anderson).
Our farm wasn't for sale, but it is now. We are located a little north of Santa Rosa. We have 105 acres and Mr. DeBurgh can buy it for half the Santa Rosa price. For $50,000.00 per acre you get a house, large barn, and many pastures fenced for horses, all with great ocean views. We will even throw in a few retired horses for pasture ornaments.
Our number is in the book. Give us a call.
October 14, 2008
10:01 a.m.
|
|
Read older 'Voices' entries here
|
