16/04/2026
The proposed ASHS constitutional change is, in my view, a crucial turning point for the ASHS, and a change of this significance should not proceed until a full independent financial impact assessment, including registration revenue modelling, and a member impact statement are presented to members before the vote.
My commitment to the HSH program is both deeply personal and long held. My Grandfather rode as a Light Horsemen in WWI, the Kirkbys Stud can trace our bloodlines back more than 70 years, and my parents helped found the Society and served as classifiers.
For transparency, our program consists of 12 registered breeding horses: one Stud Book HSH stallion, nine Stud Book HSH mares, one Stud Book mare, one C1 mare, and all live and in‑utero foals are Stud Book registrable. This commitment is precisely why I have researched the proposal in depth and feel compelled to outline my concerns.
Before we change the rules, let’s look at where we stand.
Using the ASHS Online Database (accessed 2 April 2026), I calculated that total registrations declined from 3460 in 2000 to 1,249 in 2024, a 64% reduction. A linear trend line suggests total registrations may fall to approximately 1,000 by the early 2030s. The 2025 registrations (42 horses) were excluded because they negatively biased the data, and the 2023 and 2024 figures almost certainly understate the true foal crop, as many breeders delay registration until a horse is being prepared for sale or ASH competition. To account for this, I looked at registrations from 2000 to 2020, where registrations declined by 45% and were projected to reach about 1,250 by the early 2030s. Every unregistered foal represents not only a lost registration fee, but lost transfer fees, lost competition entries, and potentially lost membership. Any proposal needs to consider how changes will interact with the current declining registration pattern.
Next, I looked at the ASHS Financial Statements from 2017 to 2024. In nominal terms, registration and transfer revenue rose 47% from $668,517 in 2017 to $982,422 in 2024. Over the same period, total registrations fell 57%, from 2,909 to 1,249. The result is that average revenue per horse has risen from $230 in 2017 to $787 in 2024, a 242% increase (no, that’s not a typo). Put simply, registration and transfer revenue did not grow because more horses were registered, it grew almost entirely by fee increases and compliance costs. A revenue model that depends on charging more for fewer horses is not sustainable, it is a warning sign.
The HSH ancestry also needs to be understood in context. Registered horses born before the Stud Book was established (pre-1971) totalled 15,021, of which 14% were HSH, reflecting a founding population that was never exclusively HSH. In the first decade of registrations (1971–1980), 48,606 horses were recorded, yet less than 10% (4,680) carried the HSH suffix. The HSH share grew steadily, reaching 21% in 1981–1990, 41% in 1991–2000, and peaked at 47% in the decade 2001–2010, the era that the HSH designation was introduced. It was in this decade where some years exceeded 50% —2002-2004 and 2006-2008. By 2011–2020 the HSH share was 38%, and in the most recent period (2021–2025) it was 32%. These figures show that the non-HSH population has nearly always been less than 50% and has never been a clear majority.
Together, these three trends indicate that the ASHS faces a participation and engagement problem, not a heritage dilution problem, and that the proposed constitutional restrictions would address the wrong issue.
Now, to the practical roadblocks and implications between policy and practice.
The participation issue is evident in the downward registration trend that breeders are reporting. After speaking with the owners of three prominent ASH HSH stallions that, on average, sire more than 50 foals each per year, a conservative estimate is that they have produced about 750 foals over the past five years. Yet only around 150 of those foals are registered, meaning roughly 600 foals or 80%, are not being registered at all. Using the cheapest registration fee (a Stud Book or Second Cross gelding at $125), this alone represents at least a $75,000 revenue loss. If this is calculated using a fee of $258 (the average for registering a Stud Book mare/filly at any age), the loss would be $154,800. This demonstrates the loss of HSH in the Stud Book is due, in part, to lost registrations, not HSH content of foals.
It has been stated that the Stud Book will be unaffected by the proposal. On paper, this may be true for breeders who mate Stud Book to Stud Book, or Stud Book to General Register with sufficient HSH. In practice, however, imposing HSH requirements in the General Register reduces the pool of horses that can produce Stud Book eligible foals, narrowing mating options for Stud Book stallions and mares. That pressure means fewer viable crosses, less genetic diversity in the Stud Book, and a smaller pipeline of horses that can realistically be bred up to Stud Book status, increasing inbreeding risk over time. The Stud Book may appear untouched in the wording of the proposal, but in real world breeding decisions its options are still narrowed.
There are also specific operational problems. The proposal is framed as a binary system using cut off bands, while the HSH designation is based percentage calculations. Using these two different assessments can produce different outcomes. For example:
MR HERITAGE - HSH (heritage assessed at 93% and Stud Book registered)
X
MISS CROSS (heritage assessed at 75% and C2 registered)
The resulting foal would calculate at 84% HSH on a percentage basis, and therefore not meet HSH status. Yet, under the proposed binary rule it would carry the HSH suffix because the parents are HSH and C2. This highlights that under the proposed binary model, there is a loss of recognised HSH ancestry.
When I asked for clarification, I was told by a Board Member that all HSH-suffixed horses would be considered 100% HSH, while the other categories would be rounded down. This distorts the results. A horse that calculates at 74% HSH but is treated as 50% for mating rules loses 24 percentage points of recognised HSH ancestry. Similarly, a 74% × 74% mating is genetically different from a 50% × 50% mating, yet if both are treated as 50%, the higher‑heritage pair is effectively penalised. Over time, the actual percent of HSH will be eroded.
I also feel there is a "them and us" dynamic developing, and it is worth acknowledging openly. Many breeders are members of both the ASHS and the AQHA, and a proposal perceived as drawing a sharper line between the two risks driving disengagement. This does not mean we shouldn’t protect the HSH Stud Book — we absolutely should — but it is possible to uphold HSH standards while still maintaining a broad, welcoming community. The HSH Stud Book is strongest when it sits at the top of a thriving pyramid with a wide, engaged, and growing base. The real opportunity is not to choose between protecting the HSH and growing the community, but to build a Society where both happen at the same time, so that breeders who have registered horses for years under the existing system will remain, rather than redirect their registrations, memberships, and associated fees toward competing registries.
A competitive issue that many dual ASHS–AQHA members will have noticed is that it is currently cheaper to register a First Cross horse with the AQHA than with the ASHS. For example, under AQHA’s early‑bird promotion it is $250 cheaper to register a First Cross filly, and $85 cheaper to register a gelding, than it is with the ASHS. When two registries are available for the same horse, especially a sale horse, most breeders will default to the cheaper one — and every time they do, it reinforces the same pattern shown in the ASHS Financial Statements: fewer horses on our books, and more pressure to plug the gap by increasing fees on those who remain.
There is a direct consequence for ASH‑only sales, which rely entirely on a strong pipeline of ASHS‑registered horses. If the proposed changes reduce registrations, there will be fewer eligible lots, which over time means lower sale numbers, reduced sale turnover, and weaker incentives to sell horses through ASHS‑approved sales. As one simple illustration, a 10% reduction in sale horse numbers would cut a 330‑lot Dalby catalogue to 297 and, at the 2025 average price, reduce turnover by around $895,000 and the ASHS associated sale revenue. The effects of this proposal are far-reaching and long-term.
Other breed societies have faced similar crossroads, and the ones that grew chose inclusion over restriction. My 10‑year tenure on the Shorthorn Beef board showed this first-hand: investing in making registration accessible, valuable, and commercially relevant created a sustainable financial base. The most instructive example is Angus Australia, which became the dominant beef breed by deliberately building the broadest possible base of participation. It maintains registers for both purebred and Angus‑influenced cattle, showing how a broad base can underpin a strong, reputable stud tier. That growth was achieved through inclusion, good service, and making registration commercially worthwhile — not through restriction.
A constructive alternative is to encourage participation across both heritage and infused bloodlines rather than restrict access. The Society could celebrate both through dual show rings or classes — one for HSH horses and another for registered ASH — while offering incentives to use high‑HSH sires and recognising breeders who lift HSH percentages. The General Register would stay inclusive, providing a clear pathway for mixed‑heritage breeders to grade up. This approach fosters growth through aspiration and recognition, not exclusion.
In closing, I want to reiterate my commitment to the ASHS and the HSH program, and it is that same commitment that has led me to examine the proposed changes carefully. I’ve made every effort to research and present this information thoroughly and in good faith, and I am not seeking to tell anyone how they should vote. I simply ask that members take the time to make an informed decision, and for the Board to provide a full independent financial impact assessment and a member impact statement to members before the vote. If the points I have raised help spark constructive, solutions‑focused conversation about how we can strengthen HSH while keeping the ASHS financial and inclusive, then this letter will have achieved its purpose.
Liz Kirkby
